- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred un der Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (in short the Act) against the judgment and award, dated 13-05-1996, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/first Addl. District Judge, Nainital (in short the Tribunal) in M. A. C. Petition No. 260 of 1994, Sri Mukhtar Alam Vs. Sri Bhupesh Chandra Joshi and another,- whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compen sation of Rs. 25,000/- along with inter est @ 12% per annum against the ap pellant. Aggrieved, the appellant (owner of the vehicle) has come up in appeal.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that claimant-respondent no. 1 on 31-05-1994 at about 10-30 p. m. when he was going back to his home from the side of Tikonia, Haldwani and reached near Pulia of Nahar a Truck No. UTF 1641, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said truck dashed against the stationary vehicle No. DLG 1986. The said stationary vehicle fell upon the claimant-respondent no. 1 crushing his right hand. The claimant-respondent no. 1 was admitted to Hospi tal, where he remained under treatment from 31-5-1994 to 21-6-1994 and sum of Rs. 25,000/= was spent on his treat ment but even then his hand could not be set at right after the treatment and he became physically disabled due to injury. At the time of the accident the claimant-respondent no. 1 was 11 years of age and he was earning Rs. 900/= per month by working as mechanic. It was alleged that the appellant/opp. Party no. 1 is the owner of the said truck no. UTF 1641, which was insured with National Insur ance Company. The claimant/respondent no. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the owner-appellant as well as National Insurance Company. Before the Tribunal respondents filed Written Statement separately. The appellant-respondent no. 1 in his written statement has submitted that he is owner of the truck in question UTF 1641, but denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of his truck and pleaded that the claimant-respondent no. 1 was responsible for this accident and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Respondent no. 2 in its written statement has denied that the vehicle in question is insured with the National Insurance Company. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal : (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driv ing of the driver of truck no. UTF 1641 as alleged in para 23 of the petition and its effect? (2)" To what amount of compensa tion, if any, is the petitioner en titled and from whom ? (3) Whether Mukhtar Alam, the pe titioner, is responsible for this ac cident? If so, to what extent and effect ? (4) Whether the vehicle Truck No. UTF 1641 was validly insured? '
(3.) BEFORE the learned Tribunal the claimants have examined three wit nesses, namely Mohd. Yusuf (PW 1), Anwar Hussain (PW 2) and Dr. S. P. Ojha (PW 3) and filed documentary evidence. A brief reference to their evi dence is given below. The claimant has examined Mohd. Yusuf (PW1), Anwar Hussain (PW2) and Dr. S. P. Ojha (PW3) to prove his case. Mohd. Yusuf (PW1) is the father of the injured-claimant. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he was not present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. His evi dence is not relevant on the point of negligence;