1. Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no. 1. Both counsel for the parties requested that issue raised in this appeal is basically legal and there is no factual dispute, hence appeal may be heard at this stage on the basis of record of memo of appeal and decided finally as no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending. Learned counsel for appellant also stated that award is not being challenged on the question, whether there was accident or not or that accident took place due to negligence of vehicle owned by Respondent 2. All these aspects are not being agitated and to this extent findings of Tribunal qua appellant are final. Appellant is confining relief in this appeal only on the quantum of compensation awarded to Claimant-Respondent 1.

2. Hence we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for parties at this stage.

3. This appeal has come up at the instance of National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurer") under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") assailing judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by Sri Veerbhadra, Additional District Judge (Court No. 8), Barabanki/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "MACP") No. 140 of 2015, awarding compensation of Rs. 7,10,319/- payable by Appellant-Insurer to Claimant-Respondent 1 along with 6% interest. Amount of compensation included (i) Rs. 6,48,000/- towards loss of earning; (ii) Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings; (iii) Rs. 10,000/- for loss of limb; (iv) Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses on assistant and, (v) Rs. 30319/- towards medical expenses.

4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are; On 03.05.2015, Luvkush, (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant") aged about 20 years while coming from Barabanki, riding an Auto Rickshaw, reached near Baraiyya crossing at around 11.00 am, when Tempo No. UP 41 T 5229 collided with Auto Rickshaw as a result whereof Claimant sustained severe injuries. He was referred to District Hospital, where after Doctors referred him to Lucknow and thereat he was admitted in Priti Hospital. His right leg was amputed. In the course of treatment, expenses of more than Rs. 66,000/were incurred. Claimant is an unskilled labour and due to amputation of right leg, has lost his source of livelihood entirely inasmuch as now it has become impossible for him to do the job of unskilled labour and, therefore, Claimant has suffered functional disability of 100%. Hence, MACP was filed before Tribunal seeking compensation of 35,70,200/along with interest on the ground that Claimant has suffered 100% disability towards earning livelihood for himself and even otherwise has to seek assistance throughout the life, hence deserves compensation in the light of aforesaid circumstances.

5. Claim was contested by Insurer as well as owner of Tempo. Appellant-Insurer contested claim by denying most of the assertions contained in MACP. It also pleaded in written statement usual defence, namely, driver of vehicle did not possess valid and effective licence, driver was not in employment of owner of insured tortfeaser vehicle, Claimant did not suffer injury in the accident with insured vehicle and Insurer has no liability for payment of compensation. It was further pleaded that Claimant has not given details of Insurance Policy as also details of owner of tortfeaser vehicle and lastly that Claimant is not entitled for any amount of compensation whatsoever.

6. Sri Prem Prakash Shukla-Respondent 2, owner of tortfeaser vehicle, i.e., Tempo, pleaded that he carried all relevant documents, namely, registration certificate, driving licence, insurance certificate, fitness certi