JUDGMENT :

This appeal by the claimant is directed against a judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ 8th Additional District Judge, Etawah dated the 29th November, 1997, rejecting Motor Accident Claims Petition No.107 of 1995.

2. According to the claimant-appellant, Kalyan Singh (for short, 'the claimant') on 27.11.1994 at about half past six in the evening hours, rode out on his scooter from an alley on to the Municipal Bypass, connecting the Highway. A mini truck, bearing registration No. UHK-300, driven negligently and at a high speed, without sounding horn, approached from Auraiya end of the road and hit the claimant's motor scooter. The collision led the claimant to lose the little finger of his left hand, that was crushed, broken and severed. The mini truck sped away towards Agra. The claimant was conveyed to the District Hospital. The claimant went to Police Station Kotwali to lodge a report on 11.01.1995, but the Police refused to register the case citing the delay. Thereupon, on 12.01.1995, the claimant sent a written information by registered post to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, which was a typed written document. It is the claimant's case that if the truck driver had not been negligent and observed rules of the road, the accident would not have happened and the claimant spared the deprivation of a digit of his hand. The deprivation has led the claimant to suffer from a feeling of inferiority complex and his capacity to work has diminished. Accordingly, the claimant instituted the present claim petition, asking for a compensation in the sum of Rs.2,29,000/-. He also sought interim relief in the sum of Rs.20,000/-.

3. A written statement was filed by one Shamim Begum, the owner of mini truck, bearing registration No. UHK-300, resisting the claim. Shamim Begum was impleaded as opposite party No.1 to the claim petition and is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this appeal. She will hereinafter be called 'the owner'. It was asserted in the owner's written statement that the offending truck was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide Cover Note No. 169379, comprehensively. The insurance was valid from 21.01.1994 to 20.01.1995. The obligation to make good the compensation, therefore, rests with the aforesaid Insurance Company. It has been pleaded that on 27.11.1994, no crime was reported at Police Station Kotwali. The claimant has not fractured his finger in the so called motor accident. It was denied that the claimant earns a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. He has suffered no loss of income. The mini truck was being operated carefully and according to the rules. Even if the compensation be held payable, the burden would go to the Insurance Company, considering that the offending truck was insured on the date of the accident. According to the owner, the claim petition deserved to be rejected.

4. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short, 'the Insurers') urging in defence that no cause of action arose to the claimant to institute this claim petition. The claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the driver of the truck was not impleaded. Also, it was bad for non-joinder, because the insurer of the motor scooter was not impleaded. On the date of the accident, the offending truck was not insured with the Insurers. The truck owner has committed breach of the conditions of insurance and did not inform the Insurers about the accident. It is the claimant, who has to prove that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending truck held a valid licence and that the offending truck had a route permit, besides a registration certificate. It was pleaded that unless the owner proves that premium for the insurance policy had been credited in the Insurers' account, the Insurers are not liable to indemnify. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the premium had not been credited and there is a viola