IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 647 of 2006 Hariom Singh …Appellant Versus Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation …Respondent Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for appellant Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent Dated: December 3, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-claimant, against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 196 of 2004, Hariom Singh vs. U.A. Transport Corporation. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimant, are that on 5.4.2004 claimant was going to Haridwar from Kashipur in Bus No. U.P.02C- 7072 of UASRTC, Kashipur Depot. When the said bus reached near village Aligarh, its driver applied the brake after being unsuccessful in overtaking to other bus, due to which front pipe of seat broke down and claimant fell down from open gate of bus and right hand of claimant was crushed beneath back wheel of bus. The claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Nagina where he was referred to Chamunda Hospital, Kashipur, where right hand of claimant was amputated. The claimant alleged 2 that about Rs.30,000/- has been expended on his treatment. The claimant was 48 years of age at the time of accident and had been working as Supervisor in M/s Stone Crashers Ramnagar and had been getting Rs.4,000/- per month from the said job. The claimant also alleged that due to amputation of his right leg he has become 80% disabled and he has unable to do his work forever. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.6,56,000/- as compensation along with interest against opposite party. Opposite party-UASRTC filed its written statement denying almost contents of claim petition for want of knowledge and took additional plea that this accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Sumo coming from opposite direction and claimant put his hand outside the window, due to which hand of claimant was injured and F.I.R. of this accident was got registered by driver and conductor at P.S. Nagina, in which driver of bus was not at fault and hand of claimant was injured due to his own negligence, therefore, the claim petition be dismissed. Parties led evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition, which were discussed in a great detail. The 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.1,32,499/- along with interest at 3 the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 21.07.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent-UASRTC and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation to the claimant and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal considered all the evidence adduced before it and thereafter came to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. U.P.02C-7072, in which claimant sustained serious injuries. I do not find any reason to disturb the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, it appears from perusal of record that claimant- injured was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. The claimant-injured has produced disability certificate indicating therein that he 4 suffered 80% disability on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The disability certificate has not been controverted by the respondent. The disability certificate has also been proved by PW-1, the claimant himself. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. One Lac on account of disability suffered by the claimant which does not appear to be convincing at all. The Tribunal has not recorded any reasoning for granting a lump sum amount of Rs. One Lac on account of disability sustained by the claimant to an extent of 80% in the accident. The statement of injured shows that he had to be admitted in the hospital where he had to undergone the operation and his right hand was amputated. The claimant produced the medical bills pertaining to his treatment for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. In view of disability certificate filed by the claimant, it is quite clear that claimant suffered disability to an extent of 80%. The claimant was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. The accident took place in the year 2004. As far as income of the claimant is concerned, the claim petition has indicated that claimant had been earning a sum of Rs.4000/- per month, but no cogent and reliable evidence has been put forward in order to establish the actual income of the claimant. In view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, the notional income of the claimant is to be assessed at Rs.36,000/- per annum. After applying the 5 multiplier of ‘8’ amount of compensation awarded in favour of claimant comes to Rs.36,000 x 8=Rs.2,88,000/-. Keeping in view the disability of claimant to an extent of 80% the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant comes to Rs.2,88,000-(Rs.2,88,000 x 20%)=Rs.2,30,400/- (rounded Rs.2,30,000/-). The amount awarded by the Tribunal against medical expenses for a sum of Rs.27,499/- (rounded Rs.27,500/-) appears to be just and proper. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain and mental agony which also appears to be justified and needs no interference. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant, comes to Rs.2,30,000 + Rs.27,500 + Rs.5,000=Rs.2,62,500/-, instead of Rs.1,32,499/- as awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation (instead of Rs.1,32,499/- as awarded by the Tribunal), along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP