IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 482 OF 2007 New India Assurance Company Ltd. …… Appellant. Versus Shankar Lal and others ……… Respondents. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. T.S. Fartiyal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Dated: 24-11-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises out against the judgment and award dated 15-9-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ I F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital, in MACP No. 177/2006, Shankar Lal Versus Parvez Khan and others. 2- The brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 10-12-2005, in the morning the claimant Shankar Lal was going to Garampani riding in his scooter No. U.A. 01/3995. When he was in between Kheenapani and Suyalbadi, Maruti Van bearing registration No. U.A. 04-A/4503, coming from Haldwani in a high speed dashed the Scooterist, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was brought to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani where he remained admitted upto 12-4-2006. He had to undergo operation. The claimant filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of Maruti Van U.A. 04-A/4503 filed his written statement and alleged 2 that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the claimant as the Scooterist was driving his scooter in a high speed. He also alleged that the Car was insured with New India Assurance company and its driver was possessing valid driving license. 4- The opposite party No.2, New India Assurance Company also contested the claim petition and alleged both the drivers had no valid driving license. The accident has occurred due to the fault of Scooterist. The breach of terms of policy was committed therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5- The opposite party No.3, driver of the offending car did not contest the claim petition. 6- The Tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence adduced by parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 7,19,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the New India Assurance Company. 7- Feeling aggrieved the New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal. 8- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disability certificate filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, showing the disability of 80%, was not got proved by the doctor, and the tribunal 3 has committed error in relying on the same. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount towards compensation due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident and it should be reduced. 10- Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has refuted the above contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability upto 80% and he also spent a huge amount on his medical treatment. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal to controvert the genuineness of the disability certificate and the learned tribunal has rightly relied upon the disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. Therefore the impugned award is perfectly justified and the appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 11- From perusal of impugned judgment and award it reveals that the Tribunal has framed issue no.1 on the point of rashness of the driver of Maruti Van bearing registration No. U.A. 04-A/4503. The claimant was riding in Scooter No. U.A. 01/3995. According to him the Maruti Car hit his scooter in a rash and negligent manner due to which he sustained grievous injuries. To prove the factum of accident, claimant has got examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed that the Maruti driver dashed his scooter in a negligent manner due to which his back-bone, ribs and both the legs were broken. He also sustained grievous injuries on his head. The report of the accident was lodged by local people at Police Chauki Khairna. Paper No. 6-C/2 is the copy of the F.I.R. in which it has been mentioned that Sri Madan Singh driver of Maruti Van dashed with the Scooter in a rash 4 and negligent manner and caused the accident. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to show that the Scooterist also contributed his negligence in causing the accident. Therefore, in view of above evidence on record the learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of Maruti Van liable to cause the accident. The driving license of the driver of offending Car, registration, fitness, insurance cover etc have been filed on record and the Tribunal has concluded that the Maruti Van was insured with New India Assurance Company and it has valid documents. The driver of the Car was also possessing valid and effective driving license. Hence the Insurance Company was made liable to pay the compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere in the above finding recorded by the tribunal. 12- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has filed medical prescriptions and bills to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded this much sum towards medical expenses and in my view the tribunal has rightly awarded this sum to the claimant. The further contention of the claimant is that due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident he has become permanently disabled upto 80%. To prove the expenses as well as the disability certificate the claimant has produced himself as P.W.1 and Dr. K.P. Uniyal P.W.2. The claimant has deposed that due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident he has become permanently disabled upto 80%. He has been issued disability certificate by the C.M.O. of Government Hospital Almora. The Medical Board after his medical examination has issued the disability certified upto 80%. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the insurance company. In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he has filed certified Photo 5 Copy of disability certificate paper No. 26-C/12 and he has proved this document by original one which he was possessing at the time of his cross-examination. The insurance company has nowhere questioned the genuineness of the disability certificate. The witness was not cross-examined on the point that the claimant did not suffer 80% disability due to the injuries sustained by him. 13- P.W.2, Dr. K.P. Uniyal has proved the medical bills. He also deposed that in his opinion still the claimant Shankar Lal is not in a position to move. This witness has further deposed that he cannot tell anything about the disability as the claimant was not treated for his bone ailment in his hospital. Here it may be stated that after accident the claimant was admitted in Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, where he was treated upto 12-3-2006. He had to undergo operation in this Hospital. Therefore, the deposition of P.W.2, Dr. K.P. Uniyal seems to be probable as in his hospital the claimant was treated for his intestine and other ailments and for bone and surgical ailment he was treated in Sushila Tiwari Hospital and the disability certificate was issued by the C.M.O. of Government Hospital Almora after making medical examination by the Medical Board. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal to doubt the genuineness of the disability certificate. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying on the disability certificate filed by the claimant. 14- The claimant has pleaded that he used to run the shop and his monthly income was Rs. 7,500/-. An income certificate issued by Tehsildar Almora has been filed showing the monthly income of Rs. 7,5000/-. The learned Tribunal did not rely on the said income 6 certificate and assessed the monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- from the profession of shopkeeper. The claimant was 45 years of age at the time of accident therefore the tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13 for the purposes of calculating the loss of business suffered by the claimant due to his disability, which comes to Rs. 60,000/- X 13 = Rs. 7,80,000/-. The percentage of disability of the claimant is 80%, therefore, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 7,80,000 X 80/100 = Rs.6,24,000/-. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid method adopted by the tribunal for computing the total loss suffered by the claimant. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the claimant comes to Rs. 6,240,000/- + Rs. 95,000/-= Rs. 7,19,000/-. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment and the same does not require interference by this Court. 15- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15-9-2007 is hereby confirmed. 17- The amount of compensation, including the statutory amount, if any, deposited with this Court be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 7