IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 495 of 2004 Prem Singh Rawat ………. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Govindi Devi …. Respondent. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Dated: 12-5-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16-11-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 190 of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 2-5-2003, at about 4.00 P.M. when the claimant Smt. Govindi Devi was doing work in her fileds, suddenly Jeep No. U.P. 02- D/1507, came there at a high speed and drove it to the fields, thereby crushing the right foot of the claimant, due to which the bone of her foot wad fractured. She was operated and steel plate was inserted in the foot. The claimant filed claim petition for award of Rs. One Lac as compensation. 3- The Opposite Party filed written statement and alleged that he was holding valid driving license. The accident did not occur due to the vehicle in question. 4- The Tribunal on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 5- The claimant in support of her case examined herself as P.W.1, and also filed documents. The Opposite Party also examined himself as D.W.1. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record. Awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and directed to deposit the amount within one months, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of portion till date of actual payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident in the present case did not occur by jeep No. U. 02D/1507, rather the accident was caused due to the negligence of the claimant, thus the Tribunal had erred in fixing liability upon the owner of the vehicle. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation. 9- I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also perused the evidence on record. The claimant has examined herself as P.W. 1, and alleged that the driver-cum-owner of the jeep No. U.P. 02-D/1507 entered the fields and dashed her, due to which back-bone of her right foot was fractured. The driver carried here to Haldwani in the said jeep where she remained admitted from 2.5.2003 to 27.5.2003. She also alleged that she spent about thirty five thousand on her treatment. She also filed bills and cash memos of purchase of medicines. She also deposed that iron rod has been inserted in her foot. F.I.R. of the accident has been lodged at the police station concerned. The owner of the jeep, D.W. 1, Prem Singh has not denied the accident by his jeep but alleged that the accident was occurred due to own negligence of the claimant but no reliable evidence has been adduced on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly not relied on the interested testimony of the owner of the vehicle on the point and held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver cum owner of the offending jeep. The claimant filed bills and cash memos of purchase of medicines amounting to Rs. 20,210/- and the Tribunal awarded admitted in the hospital for about 25 days and the Tribunal had rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,800/- towards physical and mental pain, expenses of diet etc. Therefore, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- cannot be said to be excessive compensation. 10- For the aforesaid reasons the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 16-11-2004 is confirmed. 12- The statutory amount of compensation, deposited by the appellant, at the time of admission of the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB