Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64027 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3319 of 2004 Appellant :- New India Assurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Dr. N.K. Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chaturvedi,Nagendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mata Achal Mishra Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to correct the vehicle number in the memo of appeal during the course of the day. Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Virendra Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mata Achal Mishra, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1. No one is present for respondent no.2, who is owner of the vehicle. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 16.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.142 of 2003 (Dr. N.K. Gupta vs. Anita Rani and others), by which compensation of Rs.9,03,750/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded to the claimant-respondent no.1 on account of injury received by him in a road accident. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of head-on collision between Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 which was insured with the appellant insurance company and car bearing No. D.L.-2CD4255 driven by the claimant-respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of injured claimant, who was driving the car and there was no negligence on the part of driver of Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736. The Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing 60% liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company being insurer of Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 holding 60% negligence of driver of Tata 407No.U.P. 15A-6736. No other ground was pressed by learned counsel for appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1 submits that Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently and he alone was negligent and responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the claimant. The Claims Tribunal has erred in reducing 40% compensation holding 40% negligence of the claimant. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The claimant appeared as P.W.-1, who was an eye witness of the accident. He states on oath that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 and there was no negligence on his part. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal and even driver of Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 was not produced in evidence. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has recorded the finding that it was a case of head-on collision and in any case drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has fixed 60% negligence of driver of Tata 407 No.U.P. 15A-6736 and 40% of the claimant. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of negligence of both the drivers are based on evidence and materials available on record. The compensation awarded to the claimant is almost just and proper. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The First Appeal From Order is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 P.P. Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad