JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This Appeal from Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, arises out of a challenge, which has been given to an award rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, in MACP Case No. 35 of 2007, Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. Bainy Singh and others, whereby, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, while determining the issue of entitlement of compensation to the claimant, while partially allowing the Claim Petition, by the impugned award dated 12th June, 2009, had rendered an amount of award, which was determined to be assessed to be made payable to the claimant as to be Rs.3,18,800/- along with interest payable on it @ 9% from the date of presentation of the Claim Petition.

2. The facts of the case are, that on 8th January, 2006, when the claimant was going from Haldua Sahu, Jaspur to Thakur Dwara, on his way, while he was riding a cycle, he met with an accident with a tractor trolley, bearing registration No. U.A.-06D/1628. It was contended by the claimant in the Claim Petition, that on the date of the accident, the tractor trolley was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the vehicle, which hit the claimant from the back, due to which, he suffered with grievous injuries, because he was trapped in the rear wheels of the offending vehicle.

3. Though the report of the said incident was registered before the police on 20th January, 2006, but the grievance of the appellant raised before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, was that when no action was taken against the owner of the vehicle. The claimant submitted, that owing to the gravity of injuries, which were suffered by the claimant due to the accident, he was taken to Meerut for treatment, where he was admitted in the hospital for a period of one week and he remained under treatment and that has undertaken an expenditure of approximately of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment for the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident and he further submitted that since his left leg was amputated, he was determined as to have suffered from 80% of the disability, which was certified by the doctor accordingly, who was attending upon him.

4. Apart from the aforesaid medical expenditure, he has also submitted that he would be entitled for the adequate compensation towards the mental agony and other allied compensations prayed for in the Claim Petition and entitled under the provisions of the Act. The Claim Petition was contested by the OP No. 1 to the Claim Petition, i.e. Bainy Singh, who was the owner of the offending tractor trolley. He filed his detailed written statement, being paper No. 10 Kha, and had admitted the fact, that the accident did chance on 18th January, 2006, but the exception which was carved out by the owner of the Tractor Trolley, it was on the ground, that he would not be liable to meet any expenses to be paid to the claimant on the ground, that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle since was validly registered with the Insurance Company with the Insurance Cover note No. 080901/47/05/96/00000740 dated 30th November, 2005, which was valid till 29th November, 2006. He further submitted that on the date of the accident, as the driver of the vehicle, i.e. O.P. No. 3, to the Claim Petition was having a valid driving licence, which was valid from 19th May 2000 to 18th May, 2000, and hence, on the basis of the aforesaid plea, that since the vehicle was being driven under a valid document and was validly insured with the Insurance Company, i.e. the OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 endeavoured to shift the burden of meeting the payment of compensation on the Insurance Company.

5. The United Insurance Company, had filed its written statement, being paper No. 13 Kha, and contended that since the vehicle, in question, was being driven in contravention to the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicle Act, as well as in violation of the conditions of the insurance, which was issued in favour of the offending vehicle, coupled w