A person responsible for an accident due to their own negligence is not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THIS First Appeal from Order under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "act) has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the award dated 1st November, 1999 made in Motor Accidents Claim Petition no. 10/70 of 1992 by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and has directed the insurance Company to pay Rs. 95,000/- to the claimant within one month from the date of the award with 12% interest from the date of filing the petition.

( 2 ) THE Claim Petition had been filed on 17th january, 1992 both under Section 140 and 166 of the Act by the driver of the U. P. State road Transport Corporation Bus (hereinafter referred to as the "bus), which he was driving on duty from Banda to Varanasi. It was stated that on 2nd January, 1990 at about 7:00 a. m. when the applicant was driving the bus there was heavy fog and severe cold and the visibility was also very poor and when the bus reached village Bagrahi, P. S. Rajapur, District Banda, a truck bearing No. UPZ 3490, suddenly emerged from the fog from the opposite direction and hit the bus from the front side. It was alleged that the truck which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company was being driven rashly and negligently with great speed and was being driven without blowing the horn and without putting on the headlights. It was further stated that as a result of the said accident, the bus which the applicant was envying was badly damaged and the applicant and some other passengers also received number of injuries. Regarding the injuries sustained by the applicant, it was alleged that on account of the said accident, he sustained injuries all over the body. He also suffered a compound fracture on the right leg and his left hand wrist was also fractured. His leg was also shortened by two inches. He, therefore, claimed damages undertwo heads namely special damages and general damages. Under the former head he claimed rs. 25,000/- for the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the injuries and Rs. 2,400/- for loss of his income while under the general damages he claimed Rs. 1,75,000/- out of which Rs. 12,000/- was claimed under section 140 of the Act. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs. 1,90,400/- was claimed under section 166 of the Act and an amount of rs. 12,000/- was claimed under Section 140 of the Act. He also claimed costs and pendent lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 12/-% per annum under both the heads.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1, Ram Das Singh who was the owner of the truck and opposite party No. 2 the Oriental Insurance Company filed their written statements. Opposite party no. 1 denied that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of the said accident. He further stated that the truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and that the alleged accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver himself while the truck involved in the accident was being driven on the properside of the road with slow speed in conformity with the traffic rules. Opposite Party No. 2 in its written statement inter alia alleged that the said accident had been caused by the negligence of the applicant himself and as such it was not liable to pay any compensation.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the alleged accident dated 2nd January, 1990 was caused due to rash and negligentdriving of the truck no. UPZ 3490 wherein the petitioner sustained serious physical injuries. ? 2. Whether the said truck was insured with the opposite party No. 2 Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of the alleged accident and whether the policy of insurance was valid on that date? If so, its effect ? 3. Whether the alleged accident was caused due to negligent driving of the bus No. UMV 9624 by its driver and whether the bus driver had contributed in the said accident. ? If so, its effect. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled