Navita Singh, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 16.7.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Sirsa, whereby the claimant -respondent No. 1 was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,33,541/ - on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident on 11.7.2005.
(2.) THE case of the claimant -respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that on 11.7.2005 at about 6.30 a.m., he along with his grand -father Patel Singh was coming from their fields situated at Jalalana Road to Odhan on foot and at that time they were going on the left side of the road on kutcha berm. When they reached about half km away from Odhan, one canter bearing No. RJ31G -1491 came from the side of Odhan, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the claimant. Resultantly, left foot of the claimant came underneath tyre of the canter and got crushed badly. He also sustained injuries on his forehead, right feet and on other parts of the body. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the canter. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (respondents No. 2 and 3 herein) by filing joint written statement raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and the vehicle being insured one. They denied that any accident which took place in the manner as alleged by the claimant.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 -Insurance Company filed separate reply taking some preliminary pleas that there was collusion between the claimant and the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner, that name of the driver had not been mentioned in the F.I.R., that no evidence had been collected by the police to link the driver with the accident in question and that at the time of accident, driver of the canter was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and lastly that the vehicle was not having any permit to ply the same in the jurisdiction of Harayana State. On merits, the pleas taken by the claimant were controverted.;