The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the applicability of multipliers and the assessment of disability.

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This is an Appeal from Order, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been preferred by the Insurance Company, questioning the validity of the award dated 13.03.2013, as rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 423 of 2011, Urba Dutt Bhatt vs. Surendra Kumar and Others. Before the Claim Tribunal, the opposite party no. 1 was the owner of the Motor Cycle No. UK-06S/7304, involved in the accident and the same was ridden by Rajeev Kumar S/o Jai Prakash.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant, i.e. Urba Dutt Bhatt, during the pendency of the Appeal from Order has met with the sad demise and later on the heirs of Urba Dutt Bhatt, have been substituted in the present Appeal from Order.

3. The backdrop leading to the entire controversy of the case is that on 2nd October, 2011, when the claimant was going alongwith one Sopal Singh for discharging his official responsibility from Kahipur to Mandi Samiti Guest House, Udhma Singh Nagar, when he reached near Dhela Bridge, he was dashed down by a motor cycle which was coming from the opposite direction, due to which, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his head. The first aid was provided to him and he was taken by the Ambulance to the Government Hospital, Kashipur and was found that his condition was serious.

4. The F.I.R. about the said incident was lodged before the Police Station, Kunda, Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 114 of 2001, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. On finding the condition of the injured Urba Dutt Bhatt to be grievous, he was referred to the Jeevan Rekha Hospital, Kashipur, where he remained admitted for a considerable long time and, according to the pleadings raised by the claimant before the Court below, a handsome amount of money was spent on the treatment/medicines, in meeting the hospital expenses etc. which, according to its approximate calculation, which has been given by the claimant before the Court below, reached to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. He further submitted that on account of the disability which he as suffered on account of the accident which occurred on 2nd October, 2011, he was rendered handicapped and he was not able to discharge his official responsibility to his optimum capacity, besides that, he has also suffered mental agony and pain due to the accident. When the claim was filed, the injurned was alive later he succumbed to his injuries.

5. The Claim Petition which was preferred by the deceased appellant under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was contested by the respondent No. 1, the owner of the motor cycle, the Insurance Company and the Rider of the vehicle.

6. After the exchange of the pleadings, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

7. After giving an ample opportunity to lead the respective evidence, the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 1 to the effect that as to whether the accident chanced on account of rash and negligent driving of the Rider of the motor cycle, came to the conclusion that the cause of the accident dated 2nd October, 2011, was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Rider. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided together and, thereby, it was held that on the date of the accident, i.e. 2nd October, 2011, the vehicle was insured and was driven with all valid documents and the Rider had a valid driving licence which was existing on the date of accident.

8. Up to this stage, there happens to be no controversy pertaining to the adjudication of the Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3. What is the prime bone of contention, which is being raised in the present Appeal from Order is pertaining to the finding which is recorded on issue No. 4, as to what would be the quantum of compensation which the appellant (now deceased) would be entitled for.

9. The lear