Point of law: It must be remarked that the claimant has not raised any issue about the finding on the point of contributory negligence and apportionment of liability between the two vehicles, to wit, the scooter and the fugitive truck. In substance, therefore, whatever be the law about the right of the claimant to recover compensation, where one of the vehicles cannot be identified, and there is contributory negligence held with apportionment, the case here is limited to judging the validity of the award made by the Tribunal, for whatever it is.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an Appeal by the Insurer from an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition, giving rise to this Appeal, being Motor Accident Claim Petition no.325 of 1995 was instituted on 25.12.1997 before the District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur by Mohd. Iliyas, respondent no.1 to this Appeal. Pankaj Shukla, the second respondent here, and the New India Assurance Co. Limited, were arrayed as the two opposite parties to the claim petition. The New India Assurance Co. Limited is the appellant here.

2. As facts would show in greater detail, Pankaj Shukla, respondent no.2 here, was operating the motor scooter, with whom respondent no.1, Mohd. Iliyas, the claimant was a pillion rider, when the vehicle met with the accident, giving rise to this claim. The claimant-respondent no.1 sustained serious injuries in the accident and claimed compensation under various heads, which has been granted by the Tribunal vide the award impugned. Since the appellant was the Insurer, who had insured the two wheeler that the two respondents were riding, they have been ordered to indemnify and satisfy the award. That is what has led the Insurance Company to prefer the present Appeal.

3. Mohd. Iliyas, the claimant-respondent no.1, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimant', whereas Pankaj Shukla, the second respondent, who was operating the scooter, that met with the accident, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the rider'. The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Limited, shall hereinafter be called 'the Insurer'.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, on May the 4th, 1997 the claimant was riding pillion with the rider on the latter's scooter, bearing registration no. UP 34A 5623. Both these men are employees of the District Court, Sitapur. At about 9:45 a.m. as the scooter, carrying the two, approached the Bus Stand at Sitapur, the scooter swerved, to prevent a collision with a rickshaw that suddenly appeared from the left hand side. In consequence, the scooter hit a truck on its backside, causing both the rider and the claimant to be thrown to the ground. The scooter, of course, had tripped. In consequence, the claimant sustained serious injuries, that are indicated to be four fractures in the pelvis and rupture of the urethra. He had a long and repeat stay in hospitals, in a non-ambulatory condition for three months and suffered extreme physical pain. He had to attend the call of nature while being on his bed. The claimant had to undergo prolonged treatment and multiple surgical procedures, involving substantial expenditure in the treatment. The accident, according to the medical certification, has left the claimant permanently impotent. The claimant instituted the claim petition, as already detailed hereinbefore, asking the rider and the Insurer to pay him compensation in the sum of Rs.5,75,150/-. These expenses have been claimed under thirteen different heads, set out in paragraph no.22 of the claim petition. There is a detailed statement of the medical management, hospitalization, non-ambulatory period when the claimant was bed ridden and the repeat surgery that the claimant had to undergo, besides a future darkened by impotency and a prolonged medical supervision; may be life long.

5. The rider put in a written statement, saying that the accident did not take place due to his negligence. It happened because of the sudden appearance of the rickshaw on the wrong side, and a collision with it had to be prevented. It was pleaded that he held a valid driving licence and his vehicle was duly insured with the Insurer. The compensation, if any payable, had to be borne by the Insurer.

6. The Insurer put in their written statement, traversing the claim. It was pleaded that the claim was not verifiable, inasmuch as there was no site-plan. No cause of action had arisen against the Insurer. The rider had not intimated the Insurer of the accident. The claim