- (1.) Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 as well as Shri Shobha Ram Padey, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 6.
(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 22. 02. 2008 passed in Claim Petition No. 274/2005 whereby the MACT/ADJ, Court No. 1, Lucknow has awarded a compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,43,000/- along with 8% interest per annum.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was a case of contributory negligence which was duly established from the evidence on record, yet the same has been ignored by the Tribunal and as such the finding in respect of Issue No. 1 is vitiated. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a specific plea in Paragraph-23 of the written statement was taken by the appellant that the respondent-corporation did not have a valid permit in respect of the bus in question and the Tribunal while dealing with the Issue No. 4 has recorded a finding which is contrary to the fact on record inasmuch as it has held that no such plea was raised by the appellant. Thus, the award is vitiated on account of misreading of the facts as well as evidence. The third ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding penal rate of interest inasmuch as it is provided that the awarded sum of Rs. 3,43,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum, however, it has further provided that in case if the aforesaid sum is not paid within 45 days then the retrospectively the rate of interest would be 12% per annum.;