The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to negligence, contributory negligence, breach of policy, and compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in the context of a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Satya Deo Ojha, learned counsel assisted by Sri Achintya Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant.

2. Both these appeals have been preferred against the common award dated 23.10.2009 passed by A.D.J., Special Judge (E.C. Act) Varansasi/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Varanasi in Claim Petition No. 206 of 2000 awarding a sum of Rs.13,23,831/- with interest at the rate of 06%.

3. Parties are referred as claimant and Insurance Company for the sake of convenience.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 09.04.2007 when the claimant/injured was going with his friend Manish Kodiya on Motorcycle No. U.P. 65A. A-4337. The claimant was plying the said motorcycle and when they came near Sigra, a procession was going and at 02:45 p.m. when the claimant reached at Kuber Complex a Truck bearing No. U.P. 70 U-9437 on which L.P.G. Cylinders were loaded, and, the said truck was trying to overtake the vehicle driven by the claimant/injured and while trying to overtake via left without giving any signal took turn towards left side. The driver Awadhesh Kumar - respondent no.2 was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle driven by claimant. The claimant/injured was hospitalized in Singh Medical and Research Centre, Teliyabagh and was operated by Dr. Sunil Saran, Orthopedic Surgeon and Dr. Prashant Baranwal, Plastic Surgeon & General Surgeon and was hospitalized from 09.04.2007 to 12.04.2007. Due to the accidental injuries the doctors had to amputate left lower limb right from the thigh region. The claimant was thereafter shifted to New Delhi where he was admitted from 12.04.2007 to 17.05.2007 and thereafter also he was admitted in Jai Prakash Narayan, Apex Trama, Centre, AIMS, Delhi 17.05.2007 to 20.07.2007 and from there he was discharged but despite being discharged till he filed the claim petition and till the evidence was recorded he was under pain and he had suffered disability as opined by the doctors.

5. On notices/summons being issued the respondents appeared and did not accept that the accident occurred due to involvement of the said vehicle. Despite the fact that the charge sheet was laid against the drive of the truck. Respondent no.2 namely Awadhesh Yadav did not appear before the Tribunal. Respondent no.3 Insurance Company appeared and filed reply of denial.

6. The Tribunal framed about 8 issues and decided them mostly in favour of the claimant.

7. The claimant is aggrieved by the compensation awarded, where as the Insurance Company has raised several grounds for challenging the said award. In light of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Km. Mamta, AIR 2016 (SC) 948, all the issues raised have to be decided by this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. The grounds by Insurance Company are as follows:-

"(i) The accident was caused by the truck which was carrying L.P.G. Cylinders and it was a heavy Transport Vehicle having weight of 12,000 Kg. as such driver has to possess driving licence for heavy transport vehicle but the driver has only licence for Light Motor Vehicle even without endorsement of licence for transport vehicle.

(ii) The driver has no valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and owner has committed breach of policy and as such appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

(iii) The accident was caused on 09.04.2007 and on the date, the driver of vehicle has driving licence to drive L.M.V. and the driver obtained endorsement for driving transport vehicle on 17.04.2007 i.e. after accident taken place.

(iv) The law is settled that endorsement of Transport vehicle is necessary indiscriminately whether the driving licence is for L.M.V. or for H.G.V. whereas the weight of truck is 12,000. Kg.

(v) The claima