- (1.) THIS first appeal from order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein referred to as the 'M.V. Act') has been filed by the claimant Sudeep Gupta challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 54 of 2010 (Sudeep Gupta Vs. Amar Singh and others). By the impugned award, the petition under Section 166 M.V. Act of the petitioner was allowed to the extent of Rs. 1,67,000/ - as compensation payable by United India Insurance Company -opposite -party no. 3.
(2.) THE brief facts for deciding this appeal are that according to the claimant -Sudeep Gupta, he was going to market from his house on a bicycle on 08.12.2009 at about 2.30 p.m. When he reached to the Court road in front of Rama Printing Press, a motor cycle having registration No. UP -31F -4025 which was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hit the cycle of the claimant/appellant from its back. Consequently, appellant fell down and sustained injuries in his leg and his bone of neck femer was fractured. On account of injuries sustained in the accident, he was remained hospitalized in Ayush Nurshing Home from 08.012.2009 to 18.12.2009. He was operated. He made an expenses of Rs. 60,000/ -. Apart from it for extracting these screw from the bone, one more operation is to be carried out, for which a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - is required. His income on the basis of private service was Rs. 3,000/ - per month from salary. After the accident he could not continue on his job and his source of income has come to an end and become unable for dong any work. He feel difficulty in movement and daily work. A sum of Rs. 5 lacs has been claimed as compensation by the claimant.
(3.) THE claim petition was contested by opposite party no. 1 -Amar Singh by filing written statement. He denied the allegations made in the claim petition. He did not admit his negligence and stated that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the claimant/appellant. It was also pleaded that the motor cycle was ensured with opposite party no. 3 -United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri and the registered owner of the motor cycle is the opposite party no. 2 - Anil Shukla. Anil Shukla -opposite party no. 2 has also contested the claim petition taking similar defence as taken by Amar Singh with an additional defence that the opposite party no. 1 was having a valid and effective licence at the time of accident and if any liability occurs to make the payment of compensation, the same is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company.;