Sheo Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) The present First Appeal From Order is directed against judgment and Award dated 13.5.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.83/70/2012 Abhiraj Chetri versus Jaspal Singh and another passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Special Judge SC/ST Act), Bahraich whereby an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,07,000/- was awarded in favour of respondent No.1 Abhiraj Chetri who sustained injuries in a motor accident on 26.3.2011.
(2.) The brief story as narrated by petitioner in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal reveals that, on 26.3.2011 the claimant was going towards Dhamboji crossing from Jamunaha crossing from his left side with his motor cycle and at about 4.00 P.M., the tanker registration No.UP 32-Z-0323 coming from back side and driven by rashly and negligently by the driver colluded with the motor cycle from back side causing serious injuries to the claimant. The injured was admitted to Nepalganj hospital and from there he was shifted to Sahara hospital, Lucknow where he remained in the hospital for treatment for more than 17 days. Later on, during the treatment to save his life, the right leg from the thigh was amputated. During the treatment, he visited many times in Sahara hospital and also in the other hospitals and expended too much for medical treatment. The claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal at Bahraich and after affording an opportunity to the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and passed an order of Award as above.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order, the insurance company filed this appeal raising following contentions:- (i)That the learned Tribunal at Bahraich had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. (ii)Because claimant Abhiraj Chetri had filed this claim in respect of injuries sustained by him due to accident on 26.3.2011 and it was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker and accident occurred in Nepal. Thus the Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction. (iii)That the factum of contributory negligence had not been taken into account by learned Tribunal.;