P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'Act') to question legality and propriety of judgment and award dated 12th of January 2011, rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District and Sessions Judge F.T. No. 4), Udaipur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). By the impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of first respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,312 for the disability suffered by him in a motor accident.
(2.) Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that respondent-claimant laid a claim petition, inter-alia, stating therein that on 30th of May 2005, when he was going on his motorcycle No. RJ-27-5M-1161, the same collided with Bus bearing No. RJ-12-P-0634 near Phila village. The respondent-claimant specifically pleaded that he was driving his motorcycle in strict adherence of traffic laws, at a moderate speed, but accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver second respondent Nana Lal alias Nanu Ram. The claim petition further unfurled that due to accident, respondent-claimant suffered simple and grievous injuries on his right knee and thigh. Thereafter, a report was lodged with Police Station Kurabad, wherein after investigation the driver was charge-sheeted. For quantifying amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000, respondent-claimant pleaded many facts including a very vital fact that due to the injuries suffered in road accident he has become partially incapacitated to earn his livelihood by manufacturing furniture. In substance, respondent-claimant averred in the claim petition that he was earning 5000-6000 per month but the accidental injury resulting in 20% permanent disability has sufficiently impaired his efficiency so as to affect his earnings.
(3.) The claim petition is contested by owner of the vehicle as well as appellant insurance company. The owner of the vehicle completely denied the factum of accident but admitted that the vehicle allegedly involved in accident was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company also submitted its reply with a specific objection that the motorcycle was plied by respondent-claimant in utter disregard to the Motor Vehicles Act as well as rules made thereunder, inasmuch as, at the time of accident three pillion riders accompanied him. It is also averred by the insurance company that at the time of accident respondent-claimant was not having any valid driving licence. The appellant insurance company also seriously disputed validity of the driving licence of first respondent, driver of the bus.;