The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fault for the accident and the calculation of compensation based on medical evidence and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel for the Claimant-respondent No. 1.

2. This First Appeal From order is directed against the award dated 6.7.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut allowing the claim petition of the claimant-respondent No. 1, bearing number 524 of 2020 for compensation of Rs. 66,39,947/-.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the injured Sarthak Jain met with an accident on 2.5.2017 with a truck while he was driver upon a motorcycle of his friend Pranay Bist and the injured was moving in a right direction to the left of the road whereas truck driver was driving the truck rashly and hit the motorcycle. The truck driver immediately fled the spot. The injured fainted and was immediately taken to the hospital and went under treatment. The impact of the injury upon the injured was of the nature and decree that he suffered disability to the extent of 100% and motor system disability to the extent of 75%. The speech disability was also found to be too severe to the extent of 100% and 100% is the post head injury resulting in fits. Motor system disability is 75%. Bladder disability is 100%. So in the language of the medical practitioner, the highest score of disability is 100%. It has come to be established on record that the injured at the time of accident was 21 years of age and was a student of B.Tec. 2nd year. The tribunal framed as many as seven issues for determination which are quoted as under:

A. Whether the driver of the truck No. U.P-17-AT-1888 was driving the truck rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle of the injured as a result of such driving on 2.5.2017.

B. Whether the driver of the motorcycle was having valid driving licence.

C. Whether the truck driver was having valid licence.

D. Whether the truck U.P.17-AT-1888 was duly ensured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

E. Whether it is a case of contributory negligence of the two vehicle drivers and if so what would be the effect.

F. Whether the Claim Petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

G Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation and if yes to what amount.

4. Both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant led their evidence in the matter. The Tribunal discussed and decided issue No. 1 and 5 together as they are related to each other.

5. Discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence led in regard to the above two issues. The Claims Tribunal recorded a categorical finding to the effect that soon after the accident, First Information Report (for short FIR) was lodged against the driver of the truck namely Shadab under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and in which the charge-sheet had also been submitted by the police.

6. The tribunal relied upon the testimony of RW. 2 namely Pranay Bist who was driving the motorcycle being an independent witness account of the incident and who in his testimony has clearly narrated that the was driving a motorcycle on left side of the road and the truck driver while rashly and negligently driving the truck, hit the motorcycle from the wrong side and the truck driver soon thereafter fled the scene. Then the Tribunal relied upon the spot inspection memo from which it could be clearly located that the truck was almost moving in the middle of the road and hit the motorcycle which was coming from the opposite direction by taking the truck virtually across the road and, therefore, the Tribunal arrived at conclusion that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist in the accident and it was all due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The Tribunal held that since the conduct of the truck driver in running away from the scene clearly established that he was at wrong and there was no evidence much less a substantial one of false implication of the truck driver in