Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents although notice of this application has been duly served on the respondents No. 1 and 2. The name of the respondent No. 3 was struck off by the order of this Court dated 15.07.2015.

2. By an order dated 05.09.2013 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 2540/2013, a sum of Rs. 11.00 Lakh was ordered to be deposited in favour of the respondent No. 1 before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, FTC-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 78/2008. The Lower Court's record reveals that the said sum has already been withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 on 17.12.2013. Hence, the respondent No. 1 has the knowledge of pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, the matter is ex-parte heard against the respondents No. 1 and respondent No. 2.

3. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 78/2008 [MAC Case No. 2931/2007 (old)], whereby an award of Rs. 14,97,644/- with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded in favour of the respondent No. 4.

4. The case of the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 06.09.2007 at about 11-00 PM, while he was travelling from Sivasagar to Guwahati by his Bolero Jeep at NH-37 near Midhakhat under Teok Police Station, a truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-L-6267 coming from the same direction at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner knocked the right side of the Bolero, while trying to overtake the same. As a result of the accident, the car driven by the respondent No. 1 fell down in the side of the Highway and he sustained grievous injuries. The respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 15.00 Lakh as compensation.

5. The appellant as well as owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim by filing their written statement. While, the respondent No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) admitted the date and place of the alleged accident, and submitted that the vehicle was duly insured on 02.11.2007 and that he had running the vehicle on the strength of effective permit and certificate of fitness. The appellant had taken the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties because the insurer of the Bolero Jeep was not made party and further stated that the accident instituted a cognizable offence under the IPC and without any FIR and registration of police case, the claim under GD Entry was not sustainable. Moreover, the accident information report in Form No. 54, as required under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, was not received by them. Further, stating that the police accident of the alleged accident was required to be produced and otherwise, the appellant denied the alleged accident.

6. The respondent No. 1/claimant was put to strict proof of his claim in the claim petition. Upon pleadings of the parties, following issues were taken up for consideration:

1. Whether the claimant Sri Nripen Ch. Deka sustained grievous injuries as a result of accident occurred on 6.9.2007 at about 11 P.M. near Midhakhat under Teok P.S. on N.H. No. 37, due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. AS-01-L-6267.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

7. The respondent No. 1/claimant examined two witnesses during the trial. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and one Sri Dhrubaraj Mahanta was examined as PW.2, who was stated to be the eye witness of the incident.

8. In respect of issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal upon discussing the evidence on record, accepting the entries made in the Accident Information Report (Ext. 1), held that the respondent No. 1 had sustained injuries in the accident that had occurred d