IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 776 of 2006 Vijendra Singh Rawat …Appellant Versus The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & others ... Respondents Sri Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for appellant Sri P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent no. 5 Dated: July 30, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.8.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in M.A.C.C. No. 283 of 2001. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 15.6.2001 at about 7 a.m. when the claimant was going from Dehradun to Pauri in Jeep No. U.P.06-6222, being driven by its driver rashly, for arguing/appearing in some case in Pauri Court, met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries caused by clash of jeep with Truck No. U.R.M.-4788 coming from opposite side. The deceased was practicing lawyer in Kachehri Compound, Dehradun and had been earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the said profession. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-Executive Engineer, PWD filed written statement and pleaded that no report 2 has been lodged by the claimant with regard to accident and answering opposite party was made party with malafide intention. It has also been pleaded that driver-Hari Singh Negi working under opposite party no. 1 was valid driving licence holder and on that ground he was working in Government service. It has further been pleaded that neither truck of department collided with jeep in question nor claimant sustained any injury. Opposite party no. 2-Hari Singh Negi, driver of truck in question filed his separate written statement denying therein the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that on enquiry he came to know that alleged jeep neither gone to Pauri from Dehradun on the date of accident nor opposite party no. 2 is the registered owner of alleged jeep. The contents of claim petition are false and denied. Claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and claimant wants to obtain money illegally. Neither any F.I.R. of the alleged accident has been lodged by the claimant nor any such evidence has been produced which may prove that any accident had occurred. Opposite party no. 3-Vijay Singh Rawat, who is owner of jeep in question, filed written statement pleading therein that answering opposite party was driving his jeep very carefully, but opposite party no. 2, who is driver of opposite party no. 1, carried the truck by hitting side to the jeep and since claimant kept his right hand outside and that is why claimant sustained injury in his right hand and in this accident there is no fault on the part of opposite party no. 3. He took additional plea that 3 the injury which the claimant sustained in his right leg, was due to own fault of claimant himself. The claimant did not sustain any injury on his person except the injury in his right hand. The claimant was given a sum of Rs.5,000/- for his injuries sustained in the accident, by opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Opposite party no. 4-New India Assurance Co. Ltd, who is insurer of jeep No.U.P.06-6222 filed written statement and pleaded that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1800/-, in favour of claimant, against by opposite parties no. 3 and 4 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Tanuj Semwal, learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned 4 counsel for respondent no. 5 and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has confined his argument to this aspect that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. The record reveals that the claimant stated in his oral evidence that his medical check-up was conducted in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Hospital. He has stated in the claim petition that he remained admitted in the said Hospital w.e.f. 15.6.2001 to 5.7.2001 i.e. for 20 days, due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimant has filed discharge certificate (paper no. 65B) issued by the said Hospital, but no such doctor has been produced by the claimant who may prove the injury report and discharge slip relating to claimant. The claimant filed cash memo (paper no. 40B to 45B) issued by C.M.O. Base Hospital, Srinagar, amounting to Rs.680/- and cash memo (paper no. 36B to 45B), for the period 16.6.2001 to 5.7.2001, issued by Shakuntala Medicos, Srinagar, amounting to Rs.607.32 and Rs.473.31. The claimant did not produce prescription of any doctor in support of cash memo of Shakuntala Medicos, Srinagar. The Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that on 15.6.2001 claimant sustained nominal injuries in the accident, for which he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1760.63 i.e. Rs.1800/- as compensation. The Tribunal further held that since on the date of accident alleged jeep was insured with opposite party no. 4-New India 5 Assurance Co. Ltd. and therefore opposite party no. 4 is liable to pay amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1800/- to the claimant. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. I also do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP