( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1, Amarsing Pratapsing, aged about 24 (original claimant) filed a claim petition under the provisions of Sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (mv Act" for short), and claimed compensation for an amount of Rs, 1,50,000 for the personal injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident, which occurred, on 24-8-1980, against the respondent No. 2-original opponent No. 1 (driver), respondent No. 3 originalopponent no. 3 (owner) and the appellant-original opponent No. 3 (insurer) in respect of offending truck, G. T. K. 3393. They are hereinafter referred to as the original claimant and original opponents for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 2 ) THE truck in question was proceeding from Bombay to Dabhoi at the relevant point of time and it was driven by original opponent No. 1- kanchanbhai Chhaganbhai, as driver of the owner, original opponent No. 2, pratapsing Lonasing, who is the father of the claimant. The truck was insured with original opponent No. 3. The said truck turned turtle near Borvad village in Pardi Taluka and it fell in a pit. The claimant who was travelling in hie said truck as relief driver at the relevant time had sustained severe injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the original opponent no. 1.

( 3 ) THE claimant, inter alia, contended that he sustained serious injuries on abdomen region. There was fracture of pelvis and urethra was ruptured. He was admitted in S. S. G. Hospital, Baroda, on 26-8-1980 and came to be discharged on 16-9-1980. Even after discharge from the hospital, there was dripping of urine and the claimant was suffering from acute pain due to rupture of urethra. Complications had also arisen so far as pelvis and urethra were concerned. He was also treated at Dabhoi and as there was no improvement he was shifted to Baroda in a private hospital of Dr. Satish shah where cathedral was inserted in the urethra after the operation was performed. The claimant remained in the clinic of Dr. Shah for a long time thereafter he was also treated in a neurological clinic. A tube was required to be inserted for passing of urine and the claimant had to undergo dilation treatmen in the hospital, at Nadiad.

( 4 ) IT was also the case of the claimant that he was not able to work on account of permanent partial disablement. Therefore, the claimant claimed rs. 1,50,000 by way of compensation for the personal injuries from the opponents.

( 5 ) THE original opponent No. 1 did not file separate written statement. The opponent No. 2, owner of the offending truck, did not appear and resist the claim petition. The original opponent No. 3, insurer, appeared and resisted the claim by filing written statement, at Exh. 22. The allegations made in the claim petition were traversed and controverted by the Insurance Company. It was also pleaded that there was collusion between the claimant and the owner of the offending truck.

( 6 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the claimant had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the original opponent no. 1, driver of the offending truck G. T. K. 3393. The Tribunal found that the claimant had sustained permanent partial disablement and serious injuries on urethra. Considering the nature and number of injuries, the age and avocation of the claimant and the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation, against the opponents.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the original opponent, insurer, has conic up before this Court, in this Civil Appeal, challenging the legality and validity, by invoking the aids of provisions of Sec. HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939;

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has raised two following contentions : (1) the finding of th