IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 429 of 2005 Ramesh Ram .. Appellant. Versus Nanda Ballabh Tewari and 5 others .. Respondents. Mr. Manish Dalakoti, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Goel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Dated: 29-7-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 8-7-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bageshwar, in MACT Case No. 16/2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 9-7-2003 at about 7.30 P.M. the petitioner Ramesh Ram was sitting in the Drycleaner Shop of Yasin situated in Durg Bazar, Bageshwar and Truck No. U.A. 04-A/0532 was standing near that shop. Suddenly the driver of another truck No. U.P. 28/0194 dashed his truck with the above standing truck in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the standing truck entered inside the shop of Yasin and there Ramesh Ram sustained grievous injuries. He was brought to Bageshwar Hospital from where he was referred to District Hospital Almora where he received a long term treatment. According to the claimant he spent about Rs. 1,50,000/- on his treatment. Due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has become permanently disabled. At the time of accident he was a driver and his monthly salary was Rs. 3,000/- but after accident he is unable to drive the vehicle, therefore, he has become unemployed. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 2 3- The opposite party No. 1, owner of truck No. U.P. 023/0194 filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. He alleged that driver of his truck was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. His truck was insured with New India Assurance Company and the compensation, if any, is to be paid by the insurance company. 4- Opposite Party No.2, owner of truck No. UA04- A/0532 also filed his written statement and alleged that his truck was standing near the shop of Yasin and the driver of another truck UP 02/0194 dashed his truck in a rash and negligent manner. His truck was insured with National Insurance Company. The liability of compensation is upon the truck owner U.P. 02/0194 and its insurer. 5- Both the insurance companies also contested the claim petition and alleged that terms of the insurance policy were breached and the drivers were not having valid driving license, therefore the liability of compensation cannot be assigned to the insurance companies. 6- Opposite Party No.5 is the driver of truck UP 028/0194 and he alleged that the another truck was standing on a wrong side and due to brake failure of his truck his truck was dashed to truck No. UA 04-A/ 0532. 7- Opposite Party No.6, the driver of truck No. UA 04-A/0532 also filed his written statement and alleged that at the time of accident he had valid driving license and he had no fault in causing the accident. 3 8- The tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their claim. The learned Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the owner, insurer and the driver of truck No. UP 028/0194 and directed to deposit the compensation within a period of two months, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 9- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10- Heard Sri Manish Dalakoti, Advocate for the claimant/appellant and Mr. M.K. Goel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, New India Assurance Company and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents inspite of sufficient service of notice upon them. 11- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the learned tribunal has failed to take into consideration the relevant factor for computing the compensation. The tribunal has awarded a meager amount towards compensation, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. 12- On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/New India Assurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amount towards compensation. According to him no disability certificate or evidence of amputation of leg of petitioner has been filed. The petitioner also could not prove that he is expected to be 4 treated in future also. Hence the appellant/petitioner has no claim for enhancement. 13- After having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and the material on record, I do not find any force in this appeal. Perusal of record reveals that although the claimant has made assertion that he has spent about Rs. 1,50,000/- on his treatment but he has filed the medical bills and receipts for a sum of Rs. 26,700/-. However, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head for the reasons that petitioner had to spend some amount for conveyance and fracture was found on pelvis, typhoid clavicle ( right) and ribs and continuous treatment was needed. The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate and he has no case of permanent disablement. In the aforesaid circumstances the tribunal has awarded a just amount under the heard of medical treatment. 14- The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income suffered by the claimant due to the injuries suffered by him. The claimant claimed that he could not do his work for one year. He was a driver and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of income. The Tribunal recorded a finding that if the claimant could not work for one year and for another six months in future also, the loss according to his income of Rs. 3000/- will be Rs 3,000/-x 18= Rs. 54,000/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded under this head cannot be said to be on lesser side. 15- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any 5 amount under the head of pain and suffering and the claimant is entitled to get some amount under this head. 16- I do not find any substance in the above argument. The Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amount towards medical expenses, and I do not find that there was need to award a separate amount towards pain and suffering. 17- For the reasons stated above the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 18- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8-7-2004 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB