1

Court No. - 74

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3731 of 2017

Appellant :- Anil Kumar Saroj

Respondent :- Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- Bal Ram Bind

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

As the office report dated 13.12.2017, notices issued to the

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by R.P.A.D. and courier have not

been received back unserved. Hence notice on the respondents

is deemed to be served by way of presumption. No one has put

in appearance on their behalf, when the appeal is listed for final

hearing today online.

Heard Sri Balram Bind, learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the record of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Jaunpur.

This First Appeal From Order has been preferred against

the judgement and award dated 23.8.2017 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge,

Jaunpur, in M.A.C.Petition No. 275 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Saroj Vs.

Anil Kumar Rai and others) praying for modification of the award

and enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as

compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant

in the accident.

The brief facts of the claim petition are that on 25.06.2015,

the claimant-appellant, Anil Kumar Saroj, was coming back to his

house on motorcycle, when he was hit from behind by the truck

No.U.P. 50 A.T. 2576 (hereinafter referred to as “truck” only). The

claimant-appellant was taken to the primary health centre and

thereafter, to the District Hospital, Jaunpur, where he was

operated and rod was inserted in his right leg.

2

The claimant-appellant claimed Rs.2 lacs towards medical

expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards special diet, traveling expenses,

etc. He claimed Rs.1,50,000/- loss of income since he is serving

in Central Reserved Police Force (C.R.P.F.). He claimed

compensation of Rs.5 lacs in all with 12% interest from the date

of filing of the petition.

Opposite party No.1, vehicle owner, denied the contents of

the claim petition and claimed that on the date of accident, his

vehicle was having the registration certificate, fitness, permit,

etc., which were valid and effective. The truck was being driven

by opposite party No.2, Raju Adiwasi, who had valid effective

driving licence. The accident was caused on account of

contributory negligence of the claimant-appellant. The vehicle

was duly insured with the opposite party No.3, in the claim

petition, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., which is

liable to satisfy the award if any.

Opposite party No.3, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance

Company Ltd., filed its written statement denying the contents of

claim petition. It denied that any accident was caused by the

truck in dispute. It further disputed the possession of permit,

fitness and other documents for plying the truck by the owner of

the vehicle, opposite party No.1. The plea of the contributory

negligence was also set up. The prayer for rejection of the claim

petition was made.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed six issues in

the claim petition:-

1. Whether on 25.06.2015 at about 12:30 p.m. truck-driver hit

claimant from behind, when he was riding a motorcycle and he

suffered serious injuries and whether the claimant had any

contributory negligence in the accident, if yes, then its effect?

2. Whether the truck was duly insured by the opposite party

No.3 and it was being driven as per the terms and conditions of

the policy?

3

3. Whether the driver of the vehicle had valid driving

licence?

4. Whether at the time of accident, registration permit,

fitness and other documents of the vehicle were valid and

effective?

5. Whether disputed accident was caused on the account of

contributory negligence of the claimant as well, if yes, then

its effect?

6. Whether the claimant is entitled to as compensation, if yes, to

what amount and from whom?

Issue Nos. 1 and 5 were decided by the Tribunal holding

that from the perusal of the un-controve