- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. Since both the cases are arising out of the same award and decree and com mon question of fact of law are involved in both the cases, as such, they are being decided by the common judgment.
(2.) THIS appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 23-06-2005 and decree dated 30-06-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/district Judge, Pithoragarh, in M. A. C. Case No. 31 of 2003 whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,500/- and the owner of the offending jeep- Diwan Singh Bora was di rected to pay the same. The claimant, Bhupendra Singh Bora had filed a claim petition for com pensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- before the Tri bunal alleging therein that on 23-09-2002 at about 6:30 p. m. , while the claimant- Bhupendra Singh Bora was returning to his home in jeep bearing No. U. A. 05/ 0609, the offending jeep being driven rashly and negligently by its driver met an accident near the village Jaurashi due to which the claimant had sustained the in juries on his left leg and other parts of the body. Thereafter, the claimant was admit ted in the hospital and had incurred the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the medi cal treatment. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the claimant was 20 years of age at the time of accident. The owner and insurer of the Jeep contested the claim petition and denied their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. The owner of the jeep though admitted the facts of the accident and pleaded that the jeep was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, as such, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The insurer, on the other hand, pleaded that the jeep was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving li cense. The insurer also denied the claim petition for want of knowledge and pleaded that in absence of the material facts, proper and adequate reply is not possible.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues. i. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negli gent driving by its driver on 23-10- 2002, near Jaurashi, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh by Mahendra Jeep No. U. A. 05/0609 in which the Bhupendra Singh has received the injuries ? ii. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question Mahendra Jeep No. UA 05/0609 has valid and effec tive license for driving the vehicle at the time of accident ? iii. How much compensation the claimant is entitled to get and from which opposite party? After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held in issue no. 1 that the accident oc curred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending jeep. On issue no. 2, the Tribunal held that the vehicle was not driven with valid driving license by its driver. On issue no. 3, the Tribunal held that the offending jeep was being driven by the claimant himself unauthorizedly on the date of the accident as such there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9. 500/- compensation against the owner of the offending vehi cle.;