JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of First Appeal From Order No. 357 of 2001 and Cross Objection No. 70 of 2022.

2. The aforesaid appeal and the cross objection arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rendered in MACP No. 699 of 1998.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these:

On 30.09.1998 at about quarter past 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the claimant-respondent (for short ‘the claimant’) was riding his scooter bearing Registration No. UP-14J-1607 and proceeding from Village Chauda to Sector 25, NOIDA, then falling in District Ghaziabad. As the claimant reached near Sectors 21, 25, Truck bearing Registration No. DIG/2615, driven by its driver, rashly, negligently and at a high speed, approached from the side of Sector 31 and hit the claimant’s scooter. In consequence of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries rendering him permanently disabled. At the time the accident happened, the claimant was aged 22 years. He was on the brink of death. The claimant says that he was a trained technician and employed with Supertonics India Ltd., on the post of a Foreman. He was drawing a handsome salary. It is the claimant’s case that on account of injuries sustained and the resultant permanent disability, he suffered mental agony and physical pain. He lost his job. Accordingly, in the claim petition before the Tribunal, he asked for a compensation in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs.

4. Gora Lal, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition is the owner of the offending vehicle. He put in a written statement before the Tribunal denying the claim. The stand taken was that on the fateful day, his driver was driving the offending vehicle with caution and at a slow speed. All of a sudden, the ill-fated scooter ridden by the claimant appeared on the scene. It was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed. The claimant applied brakes to save himself from being hit by a car that was moving ahead of the Truck. This resulted in the accident. It is also his plea that at the time of the accident, the claimant did not hold a valid driving license.

5. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company India Ltd. who were opposite party No. 2 to the claim petition. The appellant shall hereinafter referred to as, the Insurers.

6. It was pleaded on behalf of the Insurers that the compensation claimed is exaggerated. The accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder. It was also the Insurers’ case that at the time of the accident, the claimant did not hold a valid and effective driving license. There is also a plea that the claimant did not have a good income.

7. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed, (translated into English from Hindi):

(1) Whether on 30.09.1998, at about 03 O’ Clock near electric station crossing of Sector 21, 25, Noida, Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad, Truck No. DIG/2615, driven by its driver, rashly and at a high speed, hit the scooter bearing Registration No. UP-14J-1607, in consequence whereof the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident?

(2) Whether the accident occurred due to the claimant’s negligence?

(3) Whether the scooter rider held a valid driving license at the time of the accident? If yes, its effect?

(4) Whether at the time of the accident, the truck driver held a valid driving license?

(5) To what compensation is the claimant entitled and from which opposite party?

8. In support of his case, the claimant filed documents through a list, paper No. 19-Ga, carrying medical bills and examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as his witnesses. On behalf of the Insurers, DW-1 has been examined.

9. Issues Nos. 1 and 2, that is to say, the issues ab