Mahboob Ali, J. - (1.) This First Appeal From Order has been preferred by the claimant/appellant ('appellant, for short) Sunil Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 14.09.2012 passed by Sri Yogesh Kumar-I, District Judge, Badaun/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the "Tribunal, for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.347 of 2009 ( Sunil Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Vs. Bilal and others), awarding compensation of Rs. 9,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are:- That the appellant filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/- (Five Lacs Forty Thousand) before the Tribunal contending therein that on 31.03.2009 at about 11.00 A.M. when he was coming back to his home after taking his Class- 10th examination with his maternal uncle namely, Rajendra Kumar on pillion by Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 24J 9976, near Hydle Colony, P.S. Civil Lines, District Badaun, a Truck bearing Registration No. U.P.-21N 4007 which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motor cycle from behind, as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries, initially he was treated in district Hospital, Badaun and later by other doctors, he spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the treatment which is still continuing. Respondent no. 1 and 2 (owners of the offending Truck), in their written statement denied the factum of the accident alleging that the appellant who is a minor sustained injuries while learning motor cycle-driving. They also contended that the truck was duly insured and the driver who was driving the Truck carefully, was having a valid and effective driving licence, thus, if there comes any liability to pay compensation that would be of the Insurance Company. Respondent no.3 (driver of the truck) also denied the alleged accident and stated that on the date of incident, his driving license was valid and effective. Respondent no.4 (Insurance Company) while denying the factum of accident, in its written statement, alleged that if at all any such accident took place that was due to the sole negligence of the motor cyclist. It is also alleged that the truck in question was being plied without valid and effective route permit and fitness certificate and its driver was not having a valid and effective driving license, thus the answering Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
(3.) The Tribunal concluded that there is no evidence on record regarding the expenses entailed in the treatment of the claimant, neither any medical certificate is produced, nor any doctor who allegedly treated the appellant has been examined. Only two witnesses-APW-1 appellant Sunil Kumar and APW-2 Rajendra Kumar (Maternal Uncle of the claimant/appellant) have been examined. APW-I (appellant) has deposed that he does not know as to what amount was spent in his treatment and only his maternal uncle Rajendra Kumar APW-2 can tell about the expenses incurred in his treatment. APW-2 Rajendra Kumar in his examination has also not stated anything about the amount of medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the appellant. In these circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 9000/- with 7% interest i.e. Rs. 1,000/- for pain and sufferings as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act and Rs. 8000/- for the treatment of simple injury of the appellant.;