Y.C.GUPTA,J - (1.) The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") against the judgment and order / award dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1037 of 2009 filed by the claimant-respondent no. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 6.7.2009 at about 8.00 A.M..
(2.) IT was, interalia, averred in the Claim Petition that on 6.7.2009, the claimant-respondent no.1 was coming to Office from his village on Bicycle; and that when at about 8.00 A.M., the claimant-respondent no.1 reached the Bhatta beyond Chhote Hasanpur, a Motor-Cycle bearing Registration No. UP 15 AD 3296 (hereinafter also referred to as "the vehicle in question"), which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the Bicycle of the claimant-respondent no.1 from behind, as a result of which, the claimant-respondent no.1 fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries; and that the claimant-respondent no.1 was admitted to various Hospitals and remained under treatment, and he was still undergoing treatment; and that on account of the accident, the claimant-respondent no.1 became permanently disabled ; and that the claimant-respondent no.1 was Class-IV employee in Meerut Office of the U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad and used to get Rs. 11,000/- per month as salary. It was, interalia, further averred in the Claim Petition that the respondent no.2 (Sushil Kumar) was the owner of the vehicle in question and the respondent no. 3 ( Suraj Pal Singh) was the driver of the vehicle in question, while the Appellant-Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle in question. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. It was, interalia, further averred that the vehicle in question was not involved in any accident; and the Driver of the vehicle in question (respondent no.3) was having valid Driving Licence; and that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company for the period with effect from 19.3.2009 to 18.3.2010; and that in case any compensation was held to be payable, liability for payment of the same was entirely on the Appellant-Insurance Company; and that the Claim Petition was liable to be rejected. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. It was, interalia, further stated that no such accident had occurred on the alleged date, time and place, and if any, the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident. It was, interalia, further stated that the Driver of the vehicle in question was not having effective or valid Driving Licence at the time of the alleged accident; and that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and that the Appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The Tribunal framed four Issues in the case. Issue No.1 was regarding factum of the accident having taken place on 6.7.2009 on account of rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the vehicle in question resulting in serious injuries to the claimant-respondent no.1. Issue No.2 was as to whether the Driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Issue No.3 was as to whether the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. Issue No.4 was as to whether the claimant-respondent no.1 was entitled to get any compensation, and if yes, the quantum of such compensation, and against which opposite party in the Claim Petition. The claimant-respondent no.1 led oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 led documentary evidence in support of their case. On consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal recorded its findings on various Issues.
(3.) AS regards Issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the vehicle in question (i.e. Motor-Cycle), which resulted in serious injuries to the claimant-respondent no.1. Issue No.1 was accordingly decided. As regards Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the Driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of the accident in question. Issue No. 2 was decided accordingly. As regards Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company for the period with effect from 19.3.2009 to 18.3.2010, while the accident in question occurred on 6.7.2009. Issue No.3 was decided accordingly. As regards Issue No.4, the Tribunal held that the claimant-respondent no.1 was entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 4,94,050/- with interest @ 6% per-annum with effect from the date of presentation of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal gave the impugned Award awarding Rs. 4,94,050/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent no.1 with interest @ 6% per-annum with effect from the date of presentation of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal against the said Award. We have heard Shri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and perused the record filed with the Appeal.;