JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Mohan Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant (s). Though there are other four advocates, none appeared when the matter was argued.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by Insurance Company, being aggrieved by order dated 7.5.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Mainpuri in MACP No. 65 of 2000 (Smt. Suman Mishra Versus Prakash Chandra Katiyar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.2,87,500/-with 9% rate of interest for the injuries sustained by the claimant-opponent no.1.

3. The parties are referred to as appellant and (claimant) opponent No.1, owners as opponent no. 2 and 3.

4. Before I advert to the factual scenario the issues which are not in dispute are (a) accident is not in dispute, (b) involvement of the vehicle insured by the appellant is not in dispute, (c) finding of negligence is not challenged either in oral submission or in written submission, (d) it is not in dispute that the claimant-injured is a non tortfeasor, (e) It is not in dispute that there is permanent partial disablement as there is amputation of lower limb, (left) below the knee of a lady aged 35 years at the time of accident and (f) the date of accident is also not in dispute.

5. In light of the undisputed aforesaid facts the skeletal facts are narrated.

6. The claimant filed MAC No. 65 of 2000 against the driver, owner and the appellant insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge Mainpuri claiming a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-along with 24% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 6.5.1998 around 8.45 p.m.

7. The claim petition was filed inter alia on the grounds that the claimant was going on a motorcycle No. UP-78/1008 along with her husband from their village Nagla Bhawani to Kanpur when the driver of the truck No. UMD 8059 while driving the truck rashly and negligently hit the said motorcycle from behind, causing serious injuries to the claimant-respondent no.1 as well as her husband -Sunil Kumar Mishra; that the claimant-respondent no.1 was treated for injuries first at District Hospital Kanpur and subsequently at Lilamani Nursing Home; that during the treatment the claimant – opponent no.1, her left foot was amputated below the left knee causing permanent physical disability to her ; that the FIR of the accident was lodged at S.O. Bellapur District Kanpur on the date of the accident ; that at the time of the accident she was 35 years of age and used to earn Rs.3,000/-per month by sewing clothes and that she also looked after the house and the children ; that in this manner Rs.11,00,000/-was claimed under different heads along with 24% interest.

8. The opposite party no. 3-Mahesh Chandra Katihar, the owner of the truck UMD-8059 filed his written statement and denied all the allegations made by the claimant opposite party no.1, including the fact of the accident ever having taken place with truck No. UMD8059. The appellant (company) was also impleaded as defendant no. 3 before the Tribunal and it also filed its separate written statement and contested the claim of the opposite party no. 1 on various grounds. All the allegations made in the claim petition were denied.

9. The grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal read as under :

“1. Because the judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 is wholly arbitrary and illegal and in the teeth of the evidence on record and is liable to be set aside.

2. Because on the one hand the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant – opposite party on the basis that he had suffered 65% permanent disability and calculated her income on notional basis as if she had no income and after hav