IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 255 of 2007 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. Km. Hema Joshi and another .. Respondents. Mr. Bharat Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dated: 3-10-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4-4-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 56/2006, Km. Hema Joshi Vs. Adeep Bedi and another. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, are that on 20-12-2005, at about 4-15 P.M. when Km. Hema Joshi was returning to her home in a bicycle, from Government Inter College Lalkuan, in between Biscuit Factory and the Temple, Truck bearing registration No. UA –04-C/ 5107, coming from Gola Range in a high speed, dashed the bicycle due to which Km. Hema Joshi fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was carried to Krishna Nursing Home and Research Center Haldwani, where she remained admitted for seven days and received treatment. She was discharged on 26-12- 2005. The doctors advised her to take complete rest for about three months. Due to the injuries the injured suffered mental as well as the monetary loss. She also suffered loss in her studies. The claimant, therefore, filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of the offending truck, filed the written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition. He alleged that the truck was being driven by an experienced driver. The driver had valid driving license and the truck was insured with opposite party No.2, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. He also alleged that the claimant has demanded an exorbitant amount of compensation. However, he alleged that the liability to pay compensation is upon the insurer of the truck. 4- The opposite party No.2, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company also contested the claim petition and filed written statement. The Insurance Company alleged that information of the accident was not given to it. The claimant has claimed exorbitant amount. The offending truck was not having valid documents at the time of accident, hence the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5- The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, the claimant in support of her case, filed the affidavit of her father Sri Ramesh Chandra P.W.1 and also filed documentary evidence. The owner of the offending truck also filed copies of registration, insurance policy of the truck and copy of driving license. 6- The learned tribunal after considering the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation against the opposite party No.2, the insurer of the offending truck 3 and directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant within 60 days, failing which the claimant shall be entitled to get interest on the awarded amount of compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 8- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the claimant/respondent and perused the record. 9- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has filed photocopies of prescriptions and bills and the same have not been got proved. The Tribunal illegally relied on these bills while awarding compensation. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation only on the basis of guesswork and ignored the legal provisions while calculating the amount of compensation, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 10- After having considered the entire material available on record I do not find any substance in the above submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal of record reveals that the claimant has filed the claim petition with the assertion that she was dashed by the driver of Truck No. UA-04-C/5107 in a rash and negligent manner at the place of the accident, when she was returning in her bicycle from her school. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at P.S. Lalkuan the same day of the accident and the rashness of the truck driver was mentioned in the F.I.R. P.W.1, Ramesh 4 Chandra Joshi, father of injured Km. Hema Joshi has filed his affidavit and narrated the fact that the offending truck dashed Km. Hema Joshi in a rash and negligent manner. He also deposed that Km. Hema Joshi was admitted in Krishna Nursing Home and Research Center, Haldwani for her treatment, on the day of accident, where she remained admitted upto 26-12- 2005. He further deposed that he spent about Rs. 75,000/- on her treatment and further narrated that the medicine was purchased through the bills and prescriptions and also filed photocopies of the same. Against the aforesaid evidence, the opposite parties did not file any evidence to prove this fact that Km. Hema Joshi did not suffer injuries in the accident, she did not receive medical treatment in Krishna Nursing Home and no amount was spent on her medical treatment and purchase of medicines. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident and some money would have been spent on her medical treatment, she would also have suffered mental and physical pain and agony due to the injuries and there would have been loss of her study due to the injuries and this will hardly matter that the original bills and medical prescriptions were not brought on record. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 90,000/- towards medical expenses, mental and physical pain and loss of her studies. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the motor accident claim proceedings are summary in nature, I do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal while awarding a lump sum amount of Rs. 90,000/- due to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident. 5 11- In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 4-4-2007 is hereby confirmed. 13- The statutory amount of compensation deposited with this court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 6