1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO Nos.421 of 1997 and 17 of 1998. Date of decision: 27.05.2008. 1. FAO No.421 of 1997. United India Insurance Company …Appellant Versus Mridulla Thakur & Ors. …Respondents 2. FAO No.17 of 1998. Mridula Thakur …Appellant Versus Lekh Raj & Others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 FAO No.17 of 1998. For the Appellants: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate For Respondents 1(a): Mr.Devinder Ghosh, Advocate. 1(d) and 2. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.4: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. FAO No.421 of 1997. For the Appellants: Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For Respondents No.4(a): Mr.Devinder Ghosh, Advocate to 4(d) and 5. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Both these appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same accident. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 respondents herein Ms.Mridula Thakur instituted a petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla on the allegation that she suffered injuries in a collision between bus No.HP-22-0580 and truck No.HIE-587 on a place called Bhager, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. It is alleged that on 4.10.1995 the appellant alongwith her husband was travelling in bus No.HP-22-0580 at Hamirpur. When the bus reached at village Bhager, Truck No.HIE-587 collided with the bus and as a result the appellant hit against the handle bar of the seat in front of her resulting in injuries to her mouth and nose and loss of two upper teeth and two other teeth were fractured. She was taken for treatment to Ghumarwin Hospital and then referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. She also undertook medical treatment from a private clinic of Dr.Grover at Shimla where she is alleged to have spent Rs.50,000/- on treatment. As a result of the injuries, she was unable to perform her normal work of tuition etc. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the case in favour of the claimant-respondents and against the appellant. The learned Tribunal found from the medical record, the testimony of PW-3 Dr.C.M. Grover and the proved vouchers etc. that the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.13,556/- on her treatment. He awarded another sum of Rs.10,000/- 3 for pain and suffering and Rs.2000/- for expenses incurred in Shimla for treatment. Therefore, he awarded a sum of Rs.25,556/- to the claimant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company as the record establishes that the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the Insurance Policy. He also submits that the question of contributory negligence has been ignored by the tribunal although it has been established not only by the evidence on record, but in the manner in which it took place. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Apart from the fact that the amount awarded is petty which is only Rs.25,556/-, I do not find that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in ignoring any evidence on the record. The plea of the vehicle being driven against the Insurance Policy is not established from the record nor is there any evidence on the record to establish contributory negligence. There is nothing on the record to show that the truck was being driven in violation of the Insurance Policy. In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 FAO No.17 of 1998. The appellant herein, who is the claimant, claims enhancement in the awarded amount. I have scrutinized the evidence on the record and found that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount as claimed. No other or further amount can be awarded to the appellant for the nature of injuries as suffered by her. This appeal is also dismissed. May 27, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.