IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 343 of 2005 Govind Singh Panwar & another … Appellants Vs The New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava holding brief of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/4th Fast Track Court, Dehradun whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,67,000/- to the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2001, Sri Vikas Sharma along with his wife and daughter Juhi were going on the motorcycle No. UA07A/2223 from Dehradun to Mussoorie. When the claimant reached at Kollukhet, Mussoorie at about 12:15 p.m. an Ambassador Car No. UA07/9924 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner coming from Mussoorie to Dehradun, on its wrong side and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant/injured, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claim petition, the claimant spent huge amount on his medical treatment and suffers lot of pain. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 12,85,708/- as compensation. 2 3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has alleged that on the date of accident, the car in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. It has further pleaded that the driver of the car was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against them. 4. The opposite party No. 3 – New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver and the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The opposite party No. 4 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. – insurer of the motorcycle also contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of Ambassador Car. In the absence of driving licence, the Insurance Company was not responsible to pay any compensation. Therefore, the claim petition, against it was liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 6,67,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant with 3 the condition that the Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation from the appellant/owner of the Ambassador Car. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava holding brief of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 9. Perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving, hs considered the statements of Vikas Sharma (P.W.1) and Sri Ajay Sharma (P.W.2). Vikas Sharma (P.W.1) has stated in his deposition that on 22.10.2001 at about 11:00 a.m., he was going to Mussoorie from Dehradun along with his wife and daughter on motorcycle No. UA07A/2223. When he reached at Kullukhet, Mussoorie, suddenly, an Ambassador Car No. UA07/9924 coming from Mussoorie, collided with the motorcycle. He has further submitted that he was going on the right side of the road but the ambassador car came on the wrong side, hit his motorcycle, due to which they fell on the road. In this accident, he has received serious injuries. He has stated that the said car was being driven by Kirti Singh Panwar in a very rash and negligent manner. Sri Ajay Sharma (P.W.2) who was the eyewitness of the accident has stated that the accident took place at about 12:20 p.m. when he was going to Dehradun to Mussoorie. He has further stated that Vikas Sharma, his 4 wife and daughter were going to Mussoorie, suddenly, an Ambassador Car No. UP07/9924, coming in a very fast speed and hit the motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambassador car driver. 10. The Tribunal decided the issue No. 2 which was related to the valid and effective driving licence of the driver of Ambassador Car. Perusal of the record shows that the Insurance Company has taken plea before the Tribunal that the driver of the ambassador car was not having the valid and effective driving licence. It has further come to my notice that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the owner of the vehicle in question, to file the driving licence of the driver, it was not filed by the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus, the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in the absence of the valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it reveals that the Tribunal has rightly held that the amount of compensation has to pay by the Insurance Company and further the Tribunal has given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and rightly provided liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 11. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the circumstances as 5 well as material available on record has considered the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/-. According to the claimant the deceased was earning Rs. 5000/- per month as salary where as the Insurance Company has stated that the monthly income of the deceased was not more than Rs. 2100/. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation considered salary as Rs. 3,000/- per month. On the date of accident, the claimant was 32 years of age and the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘17’. Perusal of the record shows that the claimant submitted disability certificate, which is 55%. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to get compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- (rounded) (36000 X 17 X 55/100). Further the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record with regard to the medical expenses incurred by the claimant for his medical treatment, considered Rs. 2,06,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,25,000/- towards future treatment and thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,67,000/- (336000 + 125000 + 206000). I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the amount of compensation is very exorbitant and the Tribunal has committed illegality while awarding the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards medical expenses for future treatment whereas the claimant has claimed only Rs. 75,000/- under the said head. 6 13. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award as well as paper No. 183-B, I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal after considering the certificate of Dr. Mayank Jain wherein it has been stated that the present cost of hip- replacement was Rs. 1,25,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- under the head of future treatment. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted before the Court that due to mistake of the advocate before the Court below, the owner could not produce the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the driving licence of the driver of the Ambassador Car before the Court. 15. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award as well as record, I find that the Insurance Company sent the letter to the owner of the ambassador car in order to produce the driving licence of the driver. It has further come to my notice that the court below granted sufficient opportunity to the owner as well as the driver of the ambassador car but in spite of that they have not produced the valid and effective driving licence before the court below. The owner did not adduce any evidence before the trial court and in appeal, he cannot be permitted to produce the driving licence at the belated appellate stage. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as going through the entire material available before 7 me, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation is perfectly just and proper. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The Tribunal has rightly given liberty to the Insurance Company to take necessary steps for recovering the amount from the owner of the vehicle, if found guilty. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.11.2004 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.06.2008 ASWAL