IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 285 of 2005 Rajendra Prasad S/o Shankar Lal R/o Village Pratapgadi, Kathgodam District Nainital … Appellant Vs 1. Gyan Singh Bisht S/o Padam Singh Bisht R/o Village Kopil Bhawan Kathgodam, District Nainital 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Tikonia Haldwani, District Nainital … Respondents Sri Siddhartha Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been field by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 25.05.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in M.A.C.C. No. 144 of 2003, Rajendra Prasad Vs Gyan Singh Bisht & another whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- towards compensation within one month failing which the Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2003 at about 09:30 p.m., the appellant was standing near Filling Station (Petrol Pump), Kathgodam, suddenly a bus bearing registration No. UP02/9343, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit him, due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was immediately admitted to Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital at Haldwani. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 28 years and used to earn Rs. 3,000/-, therefore, appellant/claimant filed claim petition for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Sri Gyan Singh – owner of the vehicle contested the claim petition by filing written statement wherein he has admitted this fact that he was the owner of the bus in question. At the time of the accident, the bus was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. It has further pleaded that his bus was always parked at K.M.O.U. Office, therefore, his bus was not involved in the said accident. It has further pleaded that the claimant did not lodge any F.I.R. of this accident. 4. The National Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement wherein it has been stated that in case, the decision came to an end that the Insurance Company would pay the compensation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle then, the Insurance Company may recover the amount from the insured and the court gives the recoverable right to the Insurance Company. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. The appellant/claimant – Rajendra Prasad was examined as P.W.-1 and Dr. N.K. Bhatt was examined as P.W.2. The claimant has lodged the F.I.R. of the incident at police station Haldwani on 09.06.2003. 6. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties as well as on the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant vide order dated 25.05.2005. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Heard Sri Sri Siddhartha Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligence is completely justified which does not require interference at this stage. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of the accident, therefore, the liability of compensation has rightly been imposed upon Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation did not consider this aspect that Dr. N.K. Bhatt (P.W.2), who has examined the claimant/appellant, advised him to come to hospital for medical examination. The Tribunal, at the time of awarding the amount of compensation did not grant compensation in view of the fact that the appellant would have to visit the hospital for the injuries received by him in the said accident. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards future medical expenses. 11. Having considered the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the appellant, I come to the conclusion that as far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the evidence on records shows that on account of this accident the pelvis bone of the claimant was fractured and he needed an operation for that. The urinary track was also found to be ruptured and that also required an emergency operation. The claimant was again admitted in the hospital for recheck-up and the Doctor suggested him to take complete bed rest for 3-4 months. 12. It is clear from the impugned judgment and award that although the claimant claimed that he invested a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, but he has filed only the bills pertaining to a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and this sum has rightly been granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further rightly granted an amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of mental agony as well as pain and suffering. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the financial loss as well as future treatment of the claimant has been awarded by the Tribunal, which in my opinion is not correct. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of earning as well as the expenses towards the future medical treatment appears to be quite meager. The Doctor has been examined as P.W. 2 and on the basis of the statement of the doctor, it is quite clear that the claimant is still under the treatment of the doctor and he requires recurring medical treatment at least for coming 4-5 years. The evidence also reveals that the doctor suggested for complete bed rest for 3-4 months. The claimant was working as a cleaner and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as a salary and on account of his condition, he had a financial loss for about 3 to 4 months. Therefore, the claimant must have suffered at least Rs. 10,000/- as financial loss on account of the injuries sustained by him. As far as the expenses towards the future medical treatment is concerned, the evidence of the doctor as I have already discussed above shoes that the claimant requires recurring medical treatment for coming 4-5 years. Therefore, a sum at least Rs. 30,000/- should be granted to the claimant under the head of expenses towards future medical treatment. Therefore, the total amount of compensation in this case, comes to Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 9,000/- + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- towards medical bills, pain and agony, financial loss as well as for future expenses of medical treatment). 13. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 14. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2005 is modified up to the extent that the amount of compensation to the claimant is granted for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- instead of Rs. 24,000/-. As far as interest rate is concerned, it does not require any interference. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.03.2008 ASWAL