B.C.KANDPAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27-11-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 73/2005, Bhuwan Singh Rawat Vs. M/s ICICI Lombard Pvt. Motors General Insurer.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 3-2-2005, at about 9.30 P.M. claim­ant Bhuwan Singh along with his family members was coming to his home from village Futkuan in Alto Car U.A. 04-B/6524. When they reached near Radhaswamy Satsang Rampur Road Haldwani, due to the light of the truck coming from opposite direction, the driver of the Alto Car carried it on kuchha part of the road and in the mean-time an unknown vehicle dashed the Alto Car due to which it took overturn and the occupants of the car sustained inju­ries. The injured persons were carried to Sushila Tewari Memorial Forest Hospi­tal and from there they were shifted to Soban Singh Jeena Hospital Haidwani but looking the precarious condition of the claimant he was referred to Keshlata Hospital Bareilly. The injured sustained fracture on his leg and injuries on his head. The claimant used to do the work in the name and style of M/s New Rawat Electronics. Therefore the claimant has filed petition for compensation. The opposite party No.1 M/s I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Pvt. Motors General Insurer filed the written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the driver of the car. He has not valid and effective driving license. The owner and insurer of the vehicle which dashed the car have not been made party to the petition. The opposite party denied its liability.
(3.) THE opposite party no.2, owner of the offending Alto Car also contested the claim petition and alleged that the driver of the car was possessing valid and effective driving license. The acci­dent has occurred due to the reason that the truck coming from opposite direction did not give dipper and the car fell in the Khud. The opposite party also con­tended that the Car was insured with opposite party No. 1 and the liability of the compensation, if any, is upon the shoulder of opposite party no.1, the in­surer of the Car.;