1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate, for appellant and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "defendant-appellant") aggrieved by judgment and award dated 01.11.2017 passed by Sri Smt. Adesh Nain, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1304 of 2012 awarding compensation of Rs. 7,73,084/- to claimant-respondent along with simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum.

3. Claimant-respondent, Subhash Chandra, riding motorcycle, was going from his residence to Bhorakhurd, District Muzaffar Nagar on 23.08.2012 when at around 3.00 PM, at the turn of Bhorakhurd Shahpur, Bus No. HR-46/A-0563, driven negligently by Driver dashed his Motorcycle causing serious injuries to claimant. He was taken to Hospital but despite treatment has suffered complete disability and therefore instituted aforesaid Claim Petition for awarding compensation of Rs. 24,83,000/- with 18 per cent interest.

4. Defendant-1, Sri Anuj Kumar, owner of Tort feasing bus contested Claim Petition by filing written statement. He admitted that he is registered owner of vehicle which was duly insured with appellant-company and on the fateful day, bus was being driven by defendant-3, i.e. Sri Ravindra, son of Joginder, who possessed a valid driving licence. However, he denied factum of accident and also said that compensation claimed is highly excessive.

5. Defendant-3 also filed written statement taking a similar defence as that of owner.

6. Insurance Company, in its separate written statement, stated that claimant has not given details of Insurance Cover Note or Policy in respect to Tort feasor vehicle and onus to prove the facts stated in Claim Petition lie upon claimant.

7. In support of claim, five witnesses were examined, namely, claimant himself as PW-1, Dr. R.P. Mishra, PW-2, and three other witnesses, i.e., Pramod Kumar, PW-3, Shashi Kant Tyagi, PW-4 and Pawan Malik, PW-5. On behalf of defendants, no witness was examined.

8. Tribunal framed four issues as under:

^^1- D;k fnukad 23-08-2012 dks ;kph eksVj lkbfdy ls HkkSajk [kqnZ ls vius ?kj tk jgk Fkk tc og le; djhc 03-00 cts ih0,e0 HkkSajk dyk 'kkgiqj dh rjg eqM+k rks eqtQ~Qjuxj] cq<kuk jksM dh rjQ ls cl la0&,p0vkj0&46&,&0563 ds pkyd us cl dks rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj ;kph dh eksVj lkbfdy esa Vddj ekj nh] ftlls ;kph lqHkk"k dks xaHkhj pksVsa vk;h\

2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; mDr dfFkr cl ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Mh0,y0 Fkk\

3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; mDr dfFkr cl fof/kor chfer Fkh rFkk okgu ds lHkh izi= nq?kZVuk ds le; oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Fks\

4- D;k ;kph izfrdj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdruk vkSj fdl foi{kh ls\^^

"1. Whether, the petitioner on 23.08.2012 was going home from Bhaura Khurd on a motorcycle and when he, at around 3 PM turned towards Bhaura Kala Shahpur, the driver of Bus no. HR 46A 0563, coming from the side of Budhana Road, Muzaffarnagar, by way of rash and negligent driving caused it to hit the motorcycle of petitioner Subhash, causing grave injuries to him?

2. Whether the driver of the said bus, at the time of accident, had a valid and effective D.L.?

3. Whether the said bus, at the time of accident, was duly insured and all its papers were valid and effective?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from which respondent?"

(English Translation by Court)

9. Issue-1 was answered in favour of claimant holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by defendant-3. Issue-2 was also answered by holding that driving licence of defendant-3 was valid. Similarly Issue-3 was answered in affirmence holding that Tort Feasor Vehicle was insured with appellan