IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 148 OF 2004 Nepal Singh S/o Khacheru Singh, R/o Village Maheshra P.S. Rajabpur District J.P. Nagar at present C/o M/s Sandhu Rice Mill, Aliganj Road, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar …. Appellant. Vs. 1. Sanjay Jangia R/o H.No. 291, Tarun Enclave, Pritampura, Delhi and New Capital Transport Company BG-264, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaypur Badli, Delhi. 2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch New Delhi through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bajpur Raod, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar. 3. Raj Singh S/o Har Gular R/o Village and P.O. Gokulpur, Near Wazirabad Bridge, Trans Yamuna Delhi … Respondents. Mr. B.S. Parihar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Dated:25-3-2008 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 29-1-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 39 of 2002. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 6-3-1998, the claimant Nepal Singh, was going to Delhi from Sitapur carrying with him ply in Truck No. D.L. 1-G/A 2840. When the said truck reached near Dasana in front of Sagar Vatika Hotel at about 4 A.M. on National Highway No.24, the truck collided with the woods scattered on the road and the claimant was injured. His both legs were fractured. He was admitted in Rastogi Orthopedic Center Moradabad and he got treatment there for about two years. According to the claimant the accident happened due to negligence of the truck driver. The claimant filed petition for compensation. 3- The Opposite Party/New India Assurance Company contested the claim petition and filed its written statement, denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation because the truck was being plied against the terms of policy. It also alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been demanded. 4- The owner of the offending truck did not contest the claim petition in spite of sufficient service and the petition was heard exparte against him. 5- The Tribunal framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter, the claimant produced medical bills and examined himself in support of his claim. The Insurance Company did not file any evidence. 6- The learned Tribunal after considering the material on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- against the New India Assurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of final payment. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8- Heard learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has spent Rs. 32,475/- on his treatment and produced the bills before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal out of the above amount awarded Rs. 25,000/- only. No amount towards loss of income, pain and suffering and for transportation and special diet, etc. has been awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, the compensation should be enhanced. 10- On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amount towards expenses incurred by the claimant and the appeal for enhancement is liable to be dismissed. 11- I have gone through the impugned award and find that the learned Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the offending truck suddenly collided with the woods scattered on the road and due to this the accident has occurred. The claimant has also deposed the above fact in his deposition that the truck suddenly collided with the woods scattered on the road due to which the cabin of the truck broke down and he sustained injuries. It is admitted fact that the driver, cleaner and labourer were insured as per the terms of the insurance policy. It has also come on record that the truck driver had valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability of compensation upon the Insurance Company. The finding of the Tribunal on this point if herby confirmed. 12- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded finding that the claimant produced various bills pertaining to his medical treatment for a sum of Rs. 32,475/-, out of which the Tribunal warded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by him, which does not appear to be reasonable. Hence the claimant should be awarded a sum of Rs. 32,475/- towards his medical expenses. It is pertinent to mention here that apart of the aforesaid, the claimant should have invested a handsome amount on his transportation and special diet, therefore, under this head the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The evidence on record, further reveals that both the legs of the claimant were fractured and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he could not perform his duty properly and he had to be bedridden for a long period, under the supervision of the doctors. Therefore, the claimant is also entitled for a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income. The claimant must have suffered mental agony on account of the injuries sustained by him in this accident, therefore, he is further entitled to get a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under this head, Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid calculation the total amount of compensation to awarded in favour of claimant now comes to Rs. 32,475/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs.47,475/-, rounded to Rs. 47,000/-. 13- In view of above discussion the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 14- Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified up-to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 47,000/- as compensation from the New India Assurance Company, instead of Rs. 25,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest indicated in the impugned award shall remain intact. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB