S.P.MEHROTRA AND RAJESH CHANDRA JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the Appellant -Insurance against the judgment and order/award dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Motor Accident Case No. 510 of 2004, filed by the claimant -respondent nos. 1 and 2 on ac of the death of Manoj Kumar Srivastava in an accident on 5.7.2004 at about 5 O 'clock in the evening. It was, inter -alia, stated in the Claim Petition that the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava was going on his motorcycle from Allahabad to Phoolpur on 5.7.2004 at about 5.00 P.M.; and that a Truck bearing Registration No. UP84 - 9967, which was being driven by its Driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava on Katka - Allahabad Road under Jhusi Police Station, Allahabad, as a result of which Manoj Kumar Srivastava sustained serious injuries, and he died on ac of the said injuries.
(2.) IT was, inter -alia, further stated in the Claim Petition that at the time of the accident, the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava was aged about 32 years and was employed on the post of Urea Operator in I.F.F.C.O., Phoolpur, Allahabad. The claimant -respondent nos. 1 and 2 claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/ - under fault liability under Section 168 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rs. 50,000/ - under no -fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Interest @ 12% per annum was also claimed on the said amounts from the date of the accident, namely, 5.7.2004 till the actual date of payment. The Claim Petition was contested by the Appellant -Insurance as well as the respondent no.3, i.e., the owners of the aforesaid Truck in question, namely, Truck No. UP84 -9967. In their Written Statement, the owners of the Truck in question (i.e. respondent no.3) denied the averments made in the Claim Petition, and asserted that the Truck in question was not involved in any accident. It was further asserted by the owners of the Truck in question (i.e. respondent no.3) that the Driver of the Truck in question was driving the Truck carefully and at controlled speed, and he was having a valid and effective driving licence; and that the Truck in question was insured with the Appellant -Insurance at the time of the accident.
(3.) THE Appellant -Insurance in its Written Statement denied the averments made in the Claim Petition, and further asserted that no accident on the date, place and time, as alleged in the Claim Petition, had taken place by the Truck in question; and that in case any accident took place, the same was the result of the own rashness, negligence and wrongful act of the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava. It was, inter -alia, further asserted by the Appellant -Insurance that for holding the Appellant -Insurance liable, it was necessary to prove that on the date of the accident, the driver of the Truck in question was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive that class of vehicle, i. e., the driving licence for H.G.V. (P.E.), and that the Truck in question was validly insured with the Appellant -Insurance , and that the policy of the insurance was operative and effective at the time of the said accident and was having coverage regarding risk towards the said deceased, and that all requisite documents of the Truck in question for its use at public place were up -to -date valid. It was, inter -alia, further asserted by the Appellant -Insurance that the Truck in question at the time of the said accident was not driven by a duly licenced driver authorized to drive Truck; and that the owners of the Truck in question violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy; and that the Appellant -Insurance was not liable in the present case.;