AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation of Rs.4 lacs awarded to him by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, vide the impugned award dated 04.10.2004.

The facts leading up to the filing of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are that the appellant is stated to have been going to Pinjore on his scooter bearing registration no.CH01X- 4584, on 26.08.2000, and when he reached round about of Command Hospital, Chandimandir at about 3.10 p.m., a truck bearing registration no.HP-12-3939 came and hit him from behind, as stated in the claim petition.

The truck was stated to have been driven by respondent no.1, Ramesh Kumar and was owned by respondent no.2, Nand Lal. It was insured with respondent no.3, i.e. the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the appellant who is stated to have been 28 years old at that time, suffered a head injury and became unconscious. He was moved to the PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for 2 days, i.e. upto 28.08.2000, after which he is stated to have remained under treatment as an outdoor patient, and was under such treatment even at the time of filing of claim petition, as contended.

3. The injuries are stated to have left him disabled to the extent of 77%, as per the assessment of the disability Board of the said institute itself, i.e. the PGI, Chandigarh, and consequently, seeking compensation, the claim petition came to be filed on 16.09.2000.

4. Upon notice issued to the respondents, respondents no.1 & 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle, filed a joint written statement stating therein that the claimant himself was at fault “and struck himself without taking cares of the traffic rules” (as her paragraph 10 of the said written statement).

The other averments in the petition were also either refuted or denied, including the income of the claimant, he having claimed that it was Rs.5000/- per month.

5. The insurance company, in its written statement, also denied the averments made in the petition, and in fact even stated that no accident had occurred with the vehicle in question. It was further contended that if, however, eventually the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place, then it was not on account of any rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1.

Yet further it, was stated that the claimant was not carrying a valid and effective driving licence.

As usual, contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance company by the owner of the vehicle was taken as a plea in the written statement of the insurance company, as was another plea to the effect that the driver of the insured vehicle was not also holding a valid and effective driving licence, and for those reasons, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay any compensation, if awarded.

6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by respondent no.1 as alleged?OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether claimant received injuries in the accident in question, if so to what effect?OPP

3. If the above issues are proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount?OPP

4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?OPR

5. Relief.”

It needs to be noticed here that the claim petition is seen to have been filed by the appellant himself (despite his disability of 77 %), and he also testified as PW3 and is seen to have been subjected to cross-examination by counsel for respondents no.1 & 2, as also counsel for respondent no.3. In such cross-examination, amongst other things such as describing the manner of the accident, he also stated that he c