JUDGMENT :

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J.

1. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant/ owner-cum-driver of Canter No. PB-10-Z-8353, has thrown challenge to the judgment and award dated 21.07.2003, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Solan, for short “the Tribunal”, in MAC Petition No. 83-S/2 of 2002, titled Shri Vikram alias Vicky versus Shri Joginder Singh alias Pamma and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,12,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant. Respondent No.1- ownercum driver and insurer/New India Assurance Company-respondent No. 4 have been saddled with the liability jointly and severally to the extent of 60% with right of recovery from respondent No.1-appellant herein, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award.”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

2. It is necessary to give a brief resume of the relevant facts, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal.

3. Claimant Vikram alias Vicky, being the victim of a vehicular accident, had filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- , as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that he was working as cleaner in truck (Canter) No. HR-69-0113, owned by respondent No. 2, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 Naresh Kumar and insured with respondent No. 5-United India Insurance Company, was travelling in the said vehicle as such, on 23.6.2002 from Gamberpul to Delhi, in which vegetables and tomato boxes were loaded. When the said vehicle reached near Bastara crossing on G.T. Road at Madhuban, another vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10Z-8353, which was ahead of them, being driven by Joginder Singh, appellant herein, in a high speed, without giving signal, applied emergency brakes and in that process, the said Canter hit vehicle bearing registration No. HR-69-0113 and claimant sustained injuries resulting in amputation of his left arm and rendered him permanent disabled. He was taken to Arpana Hospital, Madhuban and remained under treatment there till 2.7.2000.

4. Respondents, except respondent No. 2 Mr. Munna Khan, who did not put in appearance before the Tribunal and was proceeded against ex parte, resisted and contested the claim petition by filing separate replies.

5. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

(i) Whether petitioner has sustained the injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by driver as alleged, if so, its effect? ……. OPP

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? …..OPP

(iii) Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective DL, if so, its effect? …..OPR-4.

(iv) Whether vehicle No. PB-10-Z-8353 was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of policy? ….OPR-4.

(v) Whether there is misjoinder of respondents No. 3 and 5 as alleged? ….OPR-5.

(vi) Whether respondent No. 3 was not having valid and effective DL as alleged? …..OPR-5.

(vii) Relief.

6. Parties led evidence and also produced documents.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence on record, held that both the drivers of the offending vehicles had failed to take due care and caution and had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident in which claimant sustained injuries and rendered him permanent disabled.

8. Only Joginder Singh driver-cum- owner of offending vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10Z-8353 has questioned the impugned award. The owner, driver and the insurer of vehicle No.HR-69-0113, have not questioned the impugned award on any ground thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them.

9. Before I deal with Issues No. 2 and 3, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 4 to 6.

10. Respondent No. 4, i.e., New India Assurance Company had to discharge the onus on this issue, has failed to do so. Th