JUDGMENT : 

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present appeal has been filed by appellant-owner, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short “the Act, 1988”) against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned Additional District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. Case No.154 of 2011, Harish Chand Kalakoti vs. Jawahar Lal Agarwal & others, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,562/-against the appellant herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.04.2011, the respondent no.1-claimant was standing near Inspiration Public School, Kathgodam, and was talking with his friend Sunit Sharma. At that time, the driver of Vehicle No.UA-04A/1994, driving at high speed, recklessly and negligently, hit the respondent no.1- claimant, who was standing on the roadside, due to which he sustained serious injuries. Owing to the severity of the injuries, he was admitted to Krishna Hospital and Research Centre, Haldwani, where he underwent treatment. He remained admitted in the said hospital from 09.04.2011 to 23.04.2011. An amount of Rs.1,60,000 was spent on his treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered physical and mental agony. The accident was reported by the his father at Kathgodam Police Station. Accordingly, respondent no.1-claimant moved a claim petition before the MACT for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs).

3. The appellant (the owner of the vehicle) has filed his written statement, stating that the amount of compensation has been claimed in an inflated manner and without any basis. It is further stated in the written statement that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent no.1-claimant. On the fateful day, the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company and was being driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence.

4. Respondent no.2, driver of the vehicle, namely, Mukesh Kumar denied most of the contents of the claim petition. But, he has admitted that on the date of accident, he was having a valid and effective licence and the accident had occurred due to sudden road crossing by the petitioner-claimant.

5. Respondent-Insurance Company also filed its written statement wherein it was stated that the information of the accident was not given to the Insurance Company as per the provisions of the Act, 1988. On the fateful day the vehicle was not being driven by a driver having valid licence for which the condition of Insurance policy has been violated and hence, the insurance company is not liable for making any payment. It was the own fault of the respondent no.1-claimant due to which incident had occurred and the driver had no role to play.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed:-

(i) Whether on 09.04.2011, while the claimant was standing near Inspiration Public School, Kathgodam and talking with his friend Sumit Sharma, the driver of Truck No. UA 04A/1994, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the claimant who was standing on the roadside, due to which the claimant, Harish Singh, suffered serious injuries?

(ii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and whether the truck was not being driven as per the conditions of the insurance, if so, then it affects?

(iii) To what relief the petitioner-claimant is entitled to get?

7. Learned Tribunal decided the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.1,30,562/- and fastened the liability to pay compensation on the respondent-vehicle owner for the reason that it came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence. The licence produced and held by the driver was never issued from the office of RTA, Haldwani.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the app