JUDGMENT

B.N.MAHAPATRA, J. – This Appeal at the instance of claimant has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the award dated 05.07.2011 passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Misc. Case Nos.1055-1056/96.

2. The present appeal relates to Misc. Case Nos. 1056/96. The appellant’s case in a nutshell is that on 16.11.1995 at about 11.30 AM while the appellant was moving in a Scooter along with her father-petitioner in Misc. Case No.1055/96 from CDA side towards Sati Choura on the left side of the road, near Rotary Eye Hospital the offending Truck bearing No.OSC-1489 coming from opposite side direction at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Scooter. As a result of such accident, both the petitioners in Misc. Case No.1055/96 and daughter of the petitioner in Misc. Case No.1056/96 sustained injuries on their person and were immediately shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital for treatment. According to the claimant, lot of money has been spent for treatment of his daughter. It is stated in the claim petition that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioners had no contribution for such accident claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakh.

3. Before the Tribunal, opposite party No.1, registered owner of the Truck did not contest the case and the case was heard ex parte against him. Opposite Party No.2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing its objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to opposite party No.2-Insurance Company, the petitioner is required to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence by filing required documents. On the whole, the Insurance Company pleaded that it is not liable to pay the compensation and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following five issues:

“1. Are the cases maintainable ?

2. Whether the petitioners sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No. OSC1489 (Truck) ?

3. Is the Insurance Company liable to pay any compensation ?

4. Are the claims excessive and arbitrary ?

5. To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled ?”

5. After taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck the alleged accident took pace and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of consolidated amount of Rs.1,50,000/-towards purchase of medicines and pain and sufferings. Learned Tribunal further held that the offending vehicle was plying on the road without permit. Since opposite party No.2 has violated the policy condition, opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with right to recover the same from opposite party No.1, the registered owner of the offending Truck. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal directed opposite party No.2-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 18.11.1996 within a period of 30 days from the date of the award failing which liberty was given to the claimant-appellant to realize the compensation amount in due process of law. Learned Tribunal further directed to keep Rs.1,00,000/-in the name of the petitioner (present appellant) in shape of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank and to pay the balance amount in cash to the appellant-petitioner. Hence, the present appeal.

9. Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the