The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for compensation in a motor vehicle accident, based on the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is owner’s appeal from order which has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 thereby challenging the impugned award of 06.03.2014, as it has been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.145 of 2010 Swaran Singh vs. Arjun Singh and others. As a consequence thereto, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has rendered an award of Rs.1,91,450/-which was determined to be payable to the claimants alongwith the interest payable on it at the rate of 9% from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

2. Few basic facts as involved in the appeal, are that on 23.03.2009, when the injured was standing near village Tukdi crossing, near the house of one Malkeet Singh, a tractor coming from opposite direction, that is from village Bichwa, bearing Registration No.UK-06/L-3693, is said to have dashed against the present applicant, which hit him from the side resulting into fracture of his pectoral girdle, as well as in the vertebral column, has also got fractured. Apart from it, his liver and lungs were also got ruptured in the accident. Owing to the injuries, suffered by him due to the accident, which has chanced at 07:00 p.m. on 23.02.2009, the claimant herein was initially referred for treatment to the Community Health Center, Khatima, for the initial First Aid, but owing to the nature of grievous injuries suffered by him, he was then referred for further treatment to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, but when the recovery rate from the injuries was too slow, he was further referred to undertake his treatment at Futella Hospital in Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar; from where he was yet again further referred to take his treatment at Sai Hospital, Bareilly and then he was once again referred to Gangashil Advance Medical Research Institute, Bareilly. He submits that owing to the aforesaid treatment, which he had undergone at the various hospitals referred above, coupled with the nature of injuries suffered by him, he suffered a permanent disability and in the treatment as undertaken by him in the four hospitals, he had spent an amount of approximately Rs.4,00,000/- in his treatment.

3. The claimant submitted, that since on the date of the ill fated accident on 23.02.2009, he was of 28 years of age and at the relevant point of time, he was working as a driver with the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and was posted at Haldwani Depot. The income, which was then accruing to him, as pleaded in his claim petition was Rs.10,000 per month, but owing to the nature of employment in which he was engaged, as a driver in the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, coupled with the nature of injuries suffered by him in the accident of 23.02.2009; since he has been determined as to be a permanent disabled person, he has been rendered absolutely unsuited for his future employment, with the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, as a driver. Though not relevant but in relation to the said accident of 23.02.2009 an FIR too is said to have been registered on 15.03.2009. The registration of the FIR and the investigation, which was carried thereafter in pursuance to it though, it may not have any relevant bearing so far as the determination of compensation under the Motor Accident Claim proceedings initiated under Section 140 to be read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is concerned but obviously it did reflected the seriousness of the accident.

4. As far as the opposite party no.1, and opposite party no.2 to the claim petition, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively i.e. the tractor bearing Registration No.UK-06/L-3693, they have filed a joint written statement, wherein it was contended by them in the pleadings, which has been raised in the claim petition qua para 1, 3 and 18 are related to the factum of accident, which stand admitted, but despite of it, in their defence taken b