PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by judgment and award dated 17.9.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in M.AC.P No.255 of 2007 (Master Kesav Vs. Jameel Ahmad and another).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated on behalf of the appellant/claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') the said claim petition was filed stating therein that the appellant was aged about 3 1/2 years, not earning anything. On 23.5.2007 at about 6.30 P.M., appellant was coming to Muzaffarnagar City with Ashok Rana friend of his father on Scooter. When they reached at Out Post Bye -Pass on Bhopa road within P.S. Nai Mandi, Truck No.U.P. -12B/3684 driven rashly and negligently, came there and hit the scooter of the appellant. In the accident, appellant had sustained grievous injuries including fractures in his head, hand and face beside other injuries. The appellant was a bright student after becoming disabled his future and life have been ruined. Request has been made to award compensation of Rs.22,00,000/ - out of which, Rs.15 lacs for loss of earning capacity, Rs.4 lacs for physical and mental injuries and Rs.3 lacs for medical expenses incurred.
(3.) THE respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 owner of the offending Truck (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent nos.1) and respondent no. 2/opposite party no.2, insurer of the offending truck (hereinafter referred to as' the respondent no.2') contested the claim petition and filed separate written statements. Respondent no.1 admitted the accident, injuries sustained by the appellant therein, registration number of the offending truck, its insurance and his ownership. Rest of the averments were denied and in the additional pleas, it has been stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence and lapse of the injured, the driver of the truck was not guilty of any negligence or omission, which might have resulted in the accident. In the last, it has been pleaded that, in case, appellant is found to be entitled for compensation, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. Respondent No.2 had denied the averments made in the claim petition and it has been stated in the additional pleas that the claim petition as drafted is not maintainable, the claim petition has been filed on false and fictitious grounds. In case, papers of the truck were not valid on the date of accident, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim petition deserves to be dismissed.;