- (1.) B. S. Verma, J. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company- appellant filed copy of the In surance Policy, which is taken on record.
(2.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 01-5-2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Fast Track Court, Nainital fin short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Peti tion No. 39 of 1997, Virendra Kumar Saxena Abdul Aziz and others, whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - has been awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 9%. A rider of penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till pay ment was also put against the Insurance Company- appellant in case the pay ment is not made within a period of one month. Relevant facts are that claimant Virendra Kumar sustained grievous inju ries in a vehicular accident involving Truck No. UGP-4416 on 28-12-1989 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. It was alleged that the claimant was travelling alongwith his goods loaded on the truck. When the truck reached near village Matkota, within Police Sta tion Lalkuan, it turned over with the re sult, the injured claimant suffered inju ries and he was taken to Civil Hospital Haldwani and thereafter, he was referred to Bareilly Hospital and he had under gone operation of his leg. Ultimately, the injured became permanently disabled and claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- on different counts. The Opposite Party No. 1 Aziz Ahmad, who was alleged to be custodian of the truck on the date of accident did not contest the claim petition despite service of summons.
(3.) THE O. P. No. 2, Mohd. Ahmad, who is registered owner of the truck filed his written statement 40-Kha and con tested the claim petition asserting that he is the owner of the truck and the ve hicle was registered in his name and not of Abdul Majid. According to him, the truck was duly insured with the appel lant- Insurance Company. Quantum of compensation is excessive and the com-, pensation, if any, is liable to be paid by the insurance company. The Insurance Company- appel lant contested the claim petition con tending that no information of the acci dent was given to him as provided un der Section 158 (6) of the Act. It was also pleaded that the injured was trav elling by the goods vehicle as non-fair paying passenger, therefore, the insurer is not liable for compensation. It was also asserted that the owner is required to satisfy the tribunal that there was no violation of terms and conditions of Policy and the owner was having all valid papers. It was challenged that the petition is bad for non-joinder of driver of the vehicle.;