JUDGMENT

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

By way of this appeal, appellant/claimant seeks modification of award dated 04.07.2016 in MACT Case No.54 of 2015 vide which the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.3,96,040/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization, on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in the question.

2. The relevant facts are that on 17.01.2014, claimant Bedi @ Ved Parkash along with Mahender were going towards Aggarwal Palace, Village Jagdishpura, Ambala Road on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-8H-0521, which was being driven by Mahender and claimant Bedi @ Ved Parkash was a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. At about 8.30 P.M., when they reached near Ekansh Motors Ambala Road, Kaithal, then a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-12-J/6900 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No.1-Vikas Batra in a rash and negligent manner came from Ambala side and struck against their motorcycle. Due to the impact of the accident both of them sustained serious multiple and grievous injuries on their person. Respondent No.1 fled away from the spot along with his vehicle. In the meantime, Jai Pal son of Pala Ram reached at the spot who took the injured to General Hospital, Kaithal but due to his serious condition claimant Bedi @ Ved Parkash was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he was treated and his right leg was amputated twice. He remained admitted at PGI, Chandigarh from 18.01.2014 to 20.01.2014 and again from 06.02.2014 to 09.02.2014 and is still under treatment. He has spent Rs.2,50,000/- on his treatment, medicines, transportation and special diet etc. The accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Regarding this accident FIR No.26 dated 18.01.2014, under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 IPC was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station City, Kaithal.

3. As per the averments in the claim petition at the time of sustaining injuries in the accident, claimant was aged 45 years and was a daily wager and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Before accident he was hale and hearty but now he was unable to do work and has become permanently disabled.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) respectively filed a joint written statement taking the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, the material contents of the petition regarding happening of the accident in the manner as alleged, occupation and income of the claimant and expenses incurred on his treatment, were denied. It was submitted that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle and the said vehicle has been falsely involved to get the compensation. It was also submitted that respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner.

5. Respondent No.3-insurance company in its separate written statement took similar pleas as took by respondents No.1 and 2. In addition, it was submitted that the offending vehicle was being used in violation of motor vehicles Act as well as terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver was not having valid and effective driving license and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. It was further submitted that the claimant