By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1 at length and perused the impugned award as also the papers filed alongwith the memo of appeal.

2. The appellant has challenged the award dated 5.11.2012 passed by MACT/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in M.A.C. No. 337/2008, whereby compensation of Rs. 5,35,000/- together with simple interest @ 6% per annum had been awarded to respondent No. 1 on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in the instant motor accident.

3. The claimant (respondent No. 1) filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 20.50 lacs together with interest @ 12% per annum for grievous injuries sustained by him on 15.1.2007 at about 3 a.m. in the vicinity of P.S. Daurala District Meerut near Sakauti bridge when he was travelling in car UA 7M/2131 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Punit Bhatia and the car losing balance collided with a tree. In the accident the car was badly damaged and Punit Bhatia, the driver of the car was also injured. It was further averred in the petition that the aforesaid car was owned by respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the appellant. It has been further stated that the claimant has become permanently disabled on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. After the accident he was medically treated in KMC Hospital, Meerut and Batra Hospital, New Delhi. The insurer has paid the O.D. Claim (owner’s damage) to the owner of the vehicle for its damage. The owner of the car admitted the accident and sustaining of injuries by the claimant. The appellant contested the claim denying the contents of claim petition and stated that the claim petition had been filed in collusion with the owner of the car, who has never informed them that the claimant was also travelling in the car at the time of accident and he also sustained injuries. The payment of OD claim to the owner of the car has been admitted by the appellant but their contention is that the owner of the car in his OD claim has mentioned that no body sustained injuries in the car. Without admitting the accident, it has been averred by the appellant that the vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and fitness; the driver had no valid and effective driving license and the claimant had no monthly income. The parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case. The Tribunal after hearing the parties’ counsel has awarded compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1 as stated earlier.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following points before us;

that the claimant did not sustain injury as he was not traveling in the car in question on the alleged date and time of the accident;

that the negligence of the driver of the car in question had not been proved;

that the owner of car in question has concealed material facts when OD claim was given to him;

that the Tribunal has incorrectly appreciated the evidence available on record;

that the alleged permanent disability of the claimant has not been proved;

that an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant to punish the claimant and owner of the car by the competent Court after lodging FIR against them, but this application has not been disposed of by the Tribunal.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 refuting the above arguments has stated that the appellant has paid the OD claim to owner of the car (respondent No. 2) for the damage caused to the car involved in the accident; that the evidence adduced in the case clearly prove that the claimant was traveling in the car insured by the appellant and the car met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, who was also injured in the accident and both of them were taken by PW-3 in his ambulance from the spot and admitted in KMC Hospital, Meerut after the accident; that claimant was treated in KMC Hospital, Meerut and thereafter in Batra Hospita