IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.372 of 2004. Reserved on: 12.11.2008. Date of decision: December 8, 2008. Himachal Road Transport Corp. & Anr. … Appellants. Versus Master Arjun Rana & Anr. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr.H.S.Rawat, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 13.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No.19-D/2002 awarding Rs.1,42,380 compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The owners and driver of the offending vehicle have been made liable to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1 filed claim petition against appellants and respondent No.2 on Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… account of injuries sustained by him in an accident on 12.9.2001 involving bus bearing No.HP-39-3921 owned by appellants which was being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The respondent No.1 at the time of accident was student of 2nd Class, his left foot was crushed, he was operated thrice and his one finger was removed in order to save his left foot. In these circumstances, respondent No.1 filed claim petition claiming Rs.2,50,000 compensation. The petition was contested, the appellants No.1 and 2 filed joint reply. They denied the claim of respondent No.1 and submitted that amount claimed is excessive. The respondent No.2 filed separate reply. He denied that accident took place on 12.9.2001 with the bus which was being driven by him. He denied that the foot of respondent No.1 was crushed by bus HP-39-3921. He denied the claim of respondent No.1 by submitting that amount claimed is excessive. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and awarded an amount of Rs.1,42,380 along with 9% interest per annum to respondent No.1, as noticed above. Hence, this appeal by the owners. …3… 3. I have heard Mr.H.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and gone through the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that no accident took place as claimed by respondent No.1. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The oral and documentary evidence has not been appreciated properly. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned award. 4. PW-4 Rakesh has stated that on 12.9.2001 he was returning from the house of his sister at about 1 or 1.30 p.m. one HRTC bus in high speed came and there was commotion there, he noticed that the left foot of Arjun was badly crushed who became unconscious due to accident. The child was taken to his residence and then to hospital. The accident took place due to negligence of the driver. He earlier stated that he knew Arjun, son of Naresh Rana. RW- 1 Gian Chand, driver of the bus, has stated that on 12.9.2001 he was driving bus No.HP-39-3921 in normal speed in Kotwali Bazar as the road is narrow. No accident took place with his bus. A false report has been lodged against him by some one. In cross examination, he admitted that the accident did take place, not with his bus …4… but with some other vehicle. He admitted that he was prosecuted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate(II) for this very accident. F.I.R. Ext.PW-2/A is of accident registered at Police Station, Dharamshala involving bus No.HP-39-3921 on 12.9.2001 at about 1 p.m. Ext.P-1 is the copy of judgment dated 27.3.2003 with respect to accident which took place on 12.9.2001 involving bus HP-39-3912 which was being driven by Gian Chand. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 27.3.2003 convicted Gian Chand under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the basis of evidence on record, it has been proved that respondent No.2 while driving bus H.P.-39-3921 rashly and negligently caused the accident on the relevant date and time and caused injuries to respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and returned the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that respondent No.1 has sustained 10% disability. He has submitted that excess compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal keeping in view the injury sustained by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal has awarded the following amount to respondent No.1:- …5… 1. Medical treatment Rs.32,380.00 2. Travelling, special diet and other sundry expenses etc. Rs.20,000.00 3. Permanent disability Rs.75,000.00 4. Pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life etc. Rs.15,000.00 Total Rs.1,42,380.00 Ext.PW-1/A to Ext.PW-1/Z-2 are the vouchers of treatment, expenses incurred on the treatment of respondent No.1. The consolidated amount of these vouchers comes to Rs.41,964.35. PW-1 Naresh Rana, father of respondent No.1, has produced documents which have been marked as Mark ‘A’ to Mark ‘Q’. These documents are computer prints and have been duly signed by the person who has issued these documents. These documents should have been exhibited instead of just marking them. The Mark ‘A’ to Mark ‘Q’ are also the vouchers of treatment, expenses incurred on respondent No.1. The consolidated amount of Mark ‘A’ to Mark ‘Q’ comes to Rs.13,934.29. Thus, the total amount as per vouchers spent on the treatment of respondent No.1 comes to Rs.55,898.64. 6. PW-1 Naresh Rana has stated that Arjun remained in the hospital at Amritsar for two months. His one finger was amputated. He spent about Rs.2 lacs on the …6… treatment of Arjun. He had to go to Amritsar several times for the check up of the child who has not still recovered. He is very poor and he has raised loans for the treatment of the child. It is reasonable to infer that during the treatment of child at Amritsar he must be requiring some attendant. The father must have spent some amount on the travelling for the treatment of the child. The respondent No.1 suffered crush injury of the foot and his one finger was amputated which is a permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.32,380 on account of treatment as against the proved expenses of treatment i.e. Rs.55,898.64 on record. It is common knowledge that some times some vouchers of treatment are misplaced or not retained. In these circumstances, it can be safely assumed that more than Rs.55,898.64 must have been spent on the treatment of respondent No.1. The travelling, special diet and other sundry expenses awarded by the learned Tribunal, in my opinion, are not on the higher side. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000 on account of permanent disability and Rs.15,000 on account of pain and suffering. In view of the actual expenses incurred by the father of respondent No.1 on the treatment of respondent No.1, in my opinion, the award of Rs.1,42,380 awarded by the Tribunal in favour of …7… respondent No.1 is just and reasonable and is not on the higher side. The appellants have miserably failed to point out that the award amount is on the higher side. The appellants have failed to make out any case for interference. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Dec. 08, 2008(soni) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. …8…