- (1.) This first appeal from order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against judgment and award dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Unnao in respect of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.122 of 2013 (Km. Pooti Vs. Ram Sanehi & Others).
(2.) The brief facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant had filed the aforesaid claim petition against the opposite parties with the fact that on 29.10.2011, the claimant Km. Pooti alongwith her father Musharrat Ali @ Munnu and mother Smt. Chand was traveling in an auto-rickshaw from Sherpur Kala Bridge to Takiya Chauraha at about 7.00 am, which was not having any registration number. The said auto-rickshaw was driven rashly and negligently and when the said rickshaw reached at Lucknow-Bangarmau Road, near Takiya crossing, it dashed against a standing truck bearing registration no. UP 78 BT/3025 from the back side, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries on her head, right leg and left leg. At first she was admitted at District Hospital, Unnao, but since the injuries were serious in nature, she was referred to Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Lucknow (Trauma Centre), where she was given treatment from 30.10.2011 to 19.11.2011 and on the said treatment about Rs.1 lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-) was spent and thereafter she had been spending Rs. 5 thousands per month for her treatment. It was further stated that later on registration number of the said auto-rickshaw was searched as UP 35 T-0914. It was also stated that the claimant was doing stitching and embroidery work at her home and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, so she claimed Rs. 7 lac as compensation. It was further stated that the matter was reported to P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi, District - Unnao and a case was registered as Crime No. 1864/2011, under sections 272, 338 & 337 I.P.C. The owner and driver of the said vehicle as well as the insurance company appeared in the said case.
(3.) The owner and driver of the vehicle, i.e. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 had filed their joint written statement, wherein it was stated that on the date of accident, all the papers of the said auto-rickshaw were valid and it was driven by duly licensed driver, however, the said accident was denied and it was stated that in fact the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, having registration number as HR 38 L-2554 and in the said accident the claimant had sustained serious injuries. But the father of the claimant had entered into compromise with the owner of the said vehicle and accepted Rs. 20,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim. In respect of the settlement, an agreement was also executed between the parties, which was filed alongwith the written statement. It was further stated that the father of the claimant is very cunning and greedy person, as such, a wrong claim has been filed against the owner and driver of the present auto-rickshaw with the legal advise, so his claim is not maintainable. The Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3 had also appeared and filed written statement, wherein it was denied that the said vehicle was insured with the insurance company. It was also stated that the vehicle was driven by a driver, who was not having a valid driving license.;