SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,RAJESH CHANDRA,J - (1.) THE present Appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Order/Award dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 389 of 2005 filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 claiming compensation in respect of an accident which took place on 21.1.2005 wherein the claimant-respondent No. 1 sustained injuries, and consequently, became physically handicapped. 2. The case of the claimant-respondent No. 1 was that on 21.1.2005, at about 12.30 in the afternoon, the claimant-respondent No. 1 was going with his uncle Ashutosh Dwivedi on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP 45A/0278 which was being driven by the said Ashutosh Dwivedi while the claimant-respondent No. 1 was sitting on the said Motorcycle as pillion rider; and that when the said Motorcycle reached Kali Sarak Crossing in Mohalla Pura Padain, Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad, a Mini Truck bearing Registration No. UGV 507, which was being driven "by its driver rashly and ; negligently, hit the said Motorcycle from behind which resulted in the claimant-respondent No. 1 falling on the ground and sustaining serious injuries, including fracture in his left leg; and that the said Ashutosh Dwivedi, who was driving the Motorcycle, also sustained injuries. The claimant-respondent No. 1 remained hospitalised in Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and then in Parvati Hospital, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Allahabad. As a result of the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1, he has become physi­cally handicapped. 3. Written Statement was filed on behalf of Bhaiya Ram Pal (respondent No. 3 herein) who denied having any connection with the truck in question or with the accident in question. Written Statement was also filed by Hans Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) admitting himself to be the owner of the truck in question, and assert­ing that all the documents pertaining to the truck in question were valid on the date of the accident. It was denied that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question.
(2.) THE appellant-Insurance Company also filed its written statement. It was, inter alia, denied that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question. It was denied that the driver of the truck in question was having a valid and effective li­cence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal framed seven Issues. Issue No. 1 was as to whether the accident in question was caused by the truck in question, namely, Vehicle No. UGV 507. Issue No. 2 was as to whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question. Issue No. 6 was as to whether the accident in question took place on as count of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Motorcycle in ques­tion, namely, Motorcycle No. UP 45-A/0278. The Tribunal decided the above issues together and concluded that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck in question and not on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Motorcycle in question. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Issue No. 4 was as to whether the driver of the truck in question was having valid licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal decided the above issues together, and concluded that the truck in question was registered in the name of Hans Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 2 herein), and was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for the period from 9/10/2004 to 8/10/05; and that the truck in ques­tion was having valid permit and fitness certificate. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the truck in question (Bhaiya Ram Pal) was having Driving Licence issued on 30.12.1996 for driving Light Motor Vehicle which was en­dorsed for driving Heavy Vehicle also w.e.f. 21.12.2001, and the said Licence was valid for the period from 1.1.2005 to 20.12.2007. The Tribunal held that as the driver of the truck in question was having Licence for driving Heavy Motor Vehicle and the truck in question was a Mini Truck, there was no violation of the Insurance Policy in case the driver was driving the truck in question. Issue No. 5 was as to whether the Claim Petition was bad for non-join­der of necessary party. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the negative. Issue No. 7 was as to whether the claimant-respondent No. 1 was enti­tled to any compensation, and if yes, as to what was the quantum of such compensation and against whom the same was to be awarded. The Tribunal held that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,81,584/- with interest @ 6 percent per annum with effect from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment, and the liability for the payment of the said compensation was on the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challeng­ing the aforesaid Award. We have heard Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned Counsel for the appel­lant-Insurance Company, and perused the record filed with the appeal.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the record, it is evident that an Application was filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking permission to contest the claim petition on all grounds which were available to the owner of the truck in question/insured per­son. However, the Tribunal by the order dated 7.8.2008 rejected the said appli­cation.;