1. These are the cross F.A.F.O.S. one filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) and the other by the claimant against the impugned order dated 1.7.1991, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad awarding compensation to the claimant to the extent of Rs. 9,64,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 52,37,000/-. 2. The claimant while proceeding on his motorcycle UGB 4020 on 14.11.1989 with his security guard in connection with the election of the State legislature on the G.T. Road from Allahabad to Fatehpur, met an accident at about 4.30 p.m. near village Sikandarpur Bazaha, P.S. Kokhraj, District Allahabad with a truck DIG 4565 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. When the motor cycle of the claimant was hit by the truck, he and his security guard both fell down and the former sustained serious injuries. The claimant was removed to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad where he remained under the treatment of an Orthopaedics, namely, Dr. A.N. Verma, who consequent upon the injuries caused to the claimant had to amputate right leg of the claimant. The claimant then arranged an artificial limb from Jaipur which place he had to visit on several occasions. It is said that according to the medical opinion, the claimant suffered 90 per cent disability. It is averred that the claimant continued to work from 1976 till the date of the accident as a clerk in the chamber of one Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate and that prior to that he was a clerk in the chamber of Mr. K.M. Dayal, Senior Advocate. Besides being a clerk, it is averred that the claimant has agricultural land where from monthly agricultural income was Rs. 8,000/-. The claimant claimed that his monthly earning from the chamber of Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate was Rs. 3,000/- and that in addition to that he also worked in the chamber of another advocate Mr. Prakash Gupta wherefrom his monthly income was Rs. 1,000/-. It is said that after the accident, the claimant ceased to be a clerk and so also he lost the agricultural income. It is said that the claimant was an active social worker when the accident took place and that he was also President of the Amitabh Bachchan Friends Association of Allahabad region besides being Manager of the Kamasin Devi Junior High School and Secretary of the Rajrooppur Development Society and that he was then contesting election of M.L.A. from the Allahabad (West) Vidhan Sabha constituency. 3. Consequent upon the amputation of the right leg, it is said that the claimant will have to depend on an attendant or a helper throughout the life. He, therefore, claimed general damages on six counts to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- and special damages to the extent of Rs. 48,75,000/-on eight counts plus compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal held that the claimant was hit by the truck being driven rashly and negligently on 14.11.1989; that he was 35 years old at the time of the accident; that his monthly income from the advocate's chamber was Rs. 2,500/- only; that considering his age of 35 years and his life expectancy of 60 years, future loss of income was to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rs. 2500/- x 12 x 25) and loss of agricultural income was Rs. 20,000/-. Total compensation on account of loss of earning and the agricultural income was taken at Rs. 7,70,000 (Rs. 7,50,000 + Rs. 20,000). The Tribunal then awarded Rs. 17,000/-for medical expenditure taking into consideration the vouchers of Uma chemist, Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of 5 bottles of blood, Rs. 1,500/- in round figure for good diet at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day for 73 days from 14.11.1989 to 17.1.1990 during which period claimant remained hospitalised, Rs. 1,000/- for future medical expenses and thus total sum of Rs. 20,500 was awarded towards special damages. 5. The Claims Tribunal then awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards transport charges holding that if such amount is deposited then regular monthly interest income at Rs. 200/- would accrue on such deposit, which could be utilised towards transport expenses. 6. The Tribunal rejected the claim for attendant holding that with the help of artificial limb, the claimant could move around and that he will be entitled to several concessions, including concession in the travelling in the category of handicapped persons. A sum of Rs. 700/- was awarded to the claimant qua the expenditure which he might have incurred on an attendant, engaged during the period of being hospitalised. Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 14,300/- from the interest income of which the claimant could avail services of an attendant; Rs. 1,000/- for the damage caused to the motor cycle; Rs. 1,500/- towards travelling expenses which the claimant would have incurred in connection with the procurement of the artificial limb; Rs. 500/- towards the cost of the artificial limb, as no evidence was adduced by the claimant to establish the actual cost of the artificial limb and Rs. 1,00,000/-, as in the opinion of the Tribunal, attractive personality, political and social activities of the claimant were adversely affected by the accident. For loss of amenities and comforts of life, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/-. General damages awarded to the claimant aggregate to Rs. 1,35,000/-. 7. This is how the Tribunal awarded general damages and special damages aggregating to Rs. 9,64,000/-. 8. Whereas the insurer has pleaded that the damages awarded by the Tribunal are excessive, the grievance of the claimant is that the Claims Tribunal has grossly under estimated the compensation for attendant and for other items. 9. As both the appeals arise from the impugned order, they are being taken up for decision together. (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy (enumeration of specified conditions follows) or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. The question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Itbar Singh 1958-65 ACJ 1 (SC) and their Lordships observed: 'The question then really is, what are the defences that Sub-section (2) makes available to an insurer? That clearly is a question of interpretation of the sub-section....' Now the language of Sub-section (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion. It is that an insurer to whom the requisite notice of the action has been given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely, after which comes an enumeration of the grounds. It would follow that an insurer is entitled to defend on any of the grounds enumerated and no others. If it were not so, then of course no grounds need have been enumerated. When the grounds of defence have been specified, they cannot be added to. To do that would be adding words to the statute.... We therefore think that Sub-section (2) clearly provides that an insurer made a defendant to the action is not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in it? 1. These are the cross F.A.F.O.S. one filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) and the other by the claimant against the impugned order dated 1.7.1991, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad awarding compensation to the claimant to the extent of Rs. 9,64,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 52,37,000/-. 2. The claimant while proceeding on his motorcycle UGB 4020 on 14.11.1989 with his security guard in connection with the election of the State legislature on the G.T. Road from Allahabad to Fatehpur, met an accident at about 4.30 p.m. near village Sikandarpur Bazaha, P.S. Kokhraj, District Allahabad with a truck DIG 4565 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. When the motor cycle of the claimant was hit by the truck, he and his security guard both fell down and the former sustained serious injuries. The claimant was removed to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad where he remained under the treatment of an Orthopaedics, namely, Dr. A.N. Verma, who consequent upon the injuries caused to the claimant had to amputate right leg of the claimant. The claimant then arranged an artificial limb from Jaipur which place he had to visit on several occasions. It is said that according to the medical opinion, the claimant suffered 90 per cent disability. It is averred that the claimant continued to work from 1976 till the date of the accident as a clerk in the chamber of one Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate and that prior to that he was a clerk in the chamber of Mr. K.M. Dayal, Senior Advocate. Besides being a clerk, it is averred that the claimant has agricultural land where from monthly agricultural income was Rs. 8,000/-. The claimant claimed that his monthly earning from the chamber of Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate was Rs. 3,000/- and that in addition to that he also worked in the chamber of another advocate Mr. Prakash Gupta wherefrom his monthly income was Rs. 1,000/-. It is said that after the accident, the claimant ceased to be a clerk and so also he lost the agricultural income. It is said that the claimant was an active social worker when the accident took place and that he was also President of the Amitabh Bachchan Friends Association of Allahabad region besides being Manager of the Kamasin Devi Junior High School and Secretary of the Rajrooppur Development Society and that he was then contesting election of M.L.A. from the Allahabad (West) Vidhan Sabha constituency. 3. Consequent upon the amputation of the right leg, it is said that the claimant will have to depend on an attendant or a helper throughout the life. He, therefore, claimed general damages on six counts to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- and special damages to the extent of Rs. 48,75,000/-on eight counts plus compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal held that the claimant was hit by the truck being driven rashly and negligently on 14.11.1989; that he was 35 years old at the time of the accident; that his monthly income from the advocate's chamber was Rs. 2,500/- only; that considering his age of 35 years and his life expectancy of 60 years, future loss of income was to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rs. 2500/- x 12 x 25) and loss of agricultural income was Rs. 20,000/-. Total compensation on account of loss of earning and the agricultural income was taken at Rs. 7,70,000 (Rs. 7,50,000 + Rs. 20,000). The Tribunal then awarded Rs. 17,000/-for medical expenditure taking into consideration the vouchers of Uma chemist, Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of 5 bottles of blood, Rs. 1,500/- in round figure for good diet at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day for 73 days from 14.11.1989 to 17.1.1990 during which period claimant remained hospitalised, Rs. 1,000/- for future medical expenses and thus total sum of Rs. 20,500 was awarded towards special damages. 5. The Claims Tribunal then awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards transport charges holding that if such amount is deposited then regular monthly interest income at Rs. 200/- would accrue on such deposit, which could be utilised towards transport expenses. 6. The Tribunal rejected the claim for attendant holding that with the help of artificial limb, the claimant could move around and that he will be entitled to several concessions, including concession in the travelling in the category of handicapped persons. A sum of Rs. 700/- was awarded to the claimant qua the expenditure which he might have incurred on an attendant, engaged during the period of being hospitalised. Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 14,300/- from the interest income of which the claimant could avail services of an attendant; Rs. 1,000/- for the damage caused to the motor cycle; Rs. 1,500/- towards travelling expenses which the claimant would have incurred in connection with the procurement of the artificial limb; Rs. 500/- towards the cost of the artificial limb, as no evidence was adduced by the claimant to establish the actual cost of the artificial limb and Rs. 1,00,000/-, as in the opinion of the Tribunal, attractive personality, political and social activities of the claimant were adversely affected by the accident. For loss of amenities and comforts of life, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/-. General damages awarded to the claimant aggregate to Rs. 1,35,000/-. 7. This is how the Tribunal awarded general damages and special damages aggregating to Rs. 9,64,000/-. 8. Whereas the insurer has pleaded that the damages awarded by the Tribunal are excessive, the grievance of the claimant is that the Claims Tribunal has grossly under estimated the compensation for attendant and for other items. 9. As both the appeals arise from the impugned order, they are being taken up for decision together. (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy (enumeration of specified conditions follows) or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. The question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Itbar Singh 1958-65 ACJ 1 (SC) and their Lordships observed: 'The question then really is, what are the defences that Sub-section (2) makes available to an insurer? That clearly is a question of interpretation of the sub-section....' Now the language of Sub-section (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion. It is that an insurer to whom the requisite notice of the action has been given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely, after which comes an enumeration of the grounds. It would follow that an insurer is entitled to defend on any of the grounds enumerated and no others. If it were not so, then of course no grounds need have been enumerated. When the grounds of defence have been specified, they cannot be added to. To do that would be adding words to the statute.... We therefore think that Sub-section (2) clearly provides that an insurer made a defendant to the action is not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in it? Submit