J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the Appellant (original Respondent No. 3) against the Award dated 13.05.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Award’) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’) in MACT No. 39/2011 titled as ‘Satender v. Sahdev Singh & Ors.’.

2. By way of the Impugned Award, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,81,422/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two Only) to Respondent (original Petitioner) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 31.01.2011 till the date of actual payment. Appellant was directed to pay the said compensation amount, being the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-17D-2122, within a period of 30 days from the date of Impugned Award along with accrued interest.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER

3. Facts of the matter as recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are as under:

“On the unfortunate day of 28.11.2010 at about 12.00 AM when the petitioner with his cousin was coming to Delhi from Mujaffar Nagar on his motorcycle and when reached near bus stand Mind Kali PS Budhana Distt. Mujaffar Nagar, the offending car bearing No. UP 17D 2122 being driven by respondent No. l very rashly and negligently and without caring the traffic rules during overtaking a truck hit the motorcycle from front side due to which the petitioner and his cousin sustained multiple injuries. Due to the accident the petitioner suffered crush injuries to his right leg and his right leg upto above knee has been amputated by the doctors of Sushruta Trauma Centre. The accident occurred due to negligence on part of respondent No. l. The FIR was registered in respect of this accident vide FIR No. 912/10, PS Budhana, U/s. 279/338/427 IPC.”

4. Since the Respondent suffered injuries in the aforementioned accident, consequently, he filed a Claim Petition bearing MACT No. 39/2011 before the learned Claims Tribunal under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of actual amount.

5. The driver (original Respondent No. 1) of the offending vehicle and owner (original Respondent No. 2) of offending vehicle contested the Claim Petition filed by Respondent by filing a joint written statement.

They denied all the allegations of the Respondent and it was their claim that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license. Appellant also filed its written statement wherein it denied all the allegations made by Respondent / Injured.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Satender son of Sh. Ram Kishan suffered injuries due to road accident on 28.11.2010 at about 12.00 AM within jurisdiction of PS Budhana, Distt. Mujaffar Nagar, UP due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 17D 2122 being driven by respondent No. l? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.

3. Relief.”

7. At the stage of evidence, Respondent/ Injured examined himself as PW-1 and tendered medical bills as Ex. PW1/1, salary certificate as Ex. PW1/2, certified copy of criminal case record as Ex. PW1/3, election card as Ex. PW1/4, and his educational qualification record as Ex. PW1/5. Further, Respondent examined Sh. Sandeep Vyas as PW-2, who tendered appointment letter of Injured dated 03.10.2009 as Ex. PW2/1, confirmation letter of Injured as Ex. PW2/2, and vouchers of salary paid to Injured as Ex. PW2/3. Respondent had moved an application before the learned Claims Tribunal seekin