IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 820 of 2006 Km. Puja Gupta … Appellant Vs Neeraj Kumar & another … Respondents Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Punkaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 11 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2005 at about 07:00 p.m. Km. Puja coming from the temple (jhanki) of Lord Krishna, when she reached near Abdullah Building, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, suddenly Motor Cycle No. UA04B/2030 dashed to Km. Puja due to which she sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner. According to the claim petition, the parents of the injured spent more than Rs. One lac on her treatment. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Sri Neeraj Kumar – owner of the motorcycle contested the claim petition by filing the written statement alleging therein that the accident took place due to 2 negligence of the injured. It has further pleaded that the amount of compensation is exorbitant and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation, if any. 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition admitting that the vehicle in question was insured with the Company. It has further pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of the unidentified vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which are discussed at a great length. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in favour of the claimant. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Punkaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition considered the statement of P.W.1 – Km. Puja who has stated that immediately after the accident she was admitted in the Balaji Hospital and 3 thereafter she was referred to Bareilly Hospital for better treatment. She has further stated that she remained in the bed for 3 to 4 months. The First Information Report of the accident was sent to S.S.P., Nainital. The opposite parties ignored the factum of accident and they have submitted that the accident occurred due to negligence of the injured. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the statement of the injureded decided the issue relating the to rash and negligent against the opposite parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed illegality by not considering this aspect that the parents of the injured spent about Rs. One lac on her medical treatment whereas the Tribunal awarded very meager amount under the same head. 10. Perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record rightly, awarded the amount under the head of medical treatment. The claimant has produced medical bill for Rs. 35,952/- and the Tribunal on the basis of the bills submitted by the claimant awarded the same amount in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal has further awarded a non- pecuniary damages for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. In the statement of P.W. 2 – Anik Kumar Gupta, he has stated that the injured used to go to Bareily for routine check-up and spent Rs. 1600/- for Ambulance expenses, but there is no evidence/receipt which may show that the claimant/injured spent the said amount under the head of 4 transportation. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record rightly calculated the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-, which appears to be quite reasonable. 11. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The amount of compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal appears to be perfectly justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.06.2008 ASWAL