IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 30 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Roop Kishore & another …Respondents Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for appellant Mr. Bhupendra Singh Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: November 25, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.C. No. 162 of 2005, Roop Kishore versus Maqbool Hussain and another. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that on 25.6.2005 claimant-Roop Kishore with his cousin Rakesh Singh was going to Thakurdwara from village Basai through Motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.A.06C-6035. Another motorcycle No.UA-06C-5163 was also following to the said motorcycle and on another vehicle Updesh Kumar and Daljeet Singh were sitting. The said motorcycle was knocked down by another Motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.A.-06C-5163 which was being driven by its driver rashly and 2 negligently. Due to this collision, claimant-Roop Kishore and Rakesh Singh fell on the road from the motorcycle, due to which, claimant-Roop Kishore sustained serious injuries on his person, while Rakesh Singh succumbed to injuries at the spot. The claimant has alleged that he was 25 years of age at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month from the work of driving. Thus, the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- as compensation severally or jointly along with interest on the said amount from the date of filing the petition till the payment of compensation. Opposite party no. 1-owner of Vehicle No.U.A.06C/5163 filed his written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that no cause of action did not accrue against him and claim petition filed against him was liable to be dismissed. He has also denied that said accident had taken place on account of rash and negligence of driver of his motorcycle. He has further pleaded that on 25.6.2005 Motorcycle No. U.A.06C/5163 remained in his possession throughout the day and he was having valid driving licence, which was issued on 16.6.2005 and was valid upto 15.6.2010 and same was also valid on the date of accident, photo copy of which has been annexed. He has also pleaded that he is the registered owner of Motorcycle No. U.A.06C-5163 and Registration Certificate of the said Motorcycle is valid w.e.f. September, 2004 to September, 2019 and copy of the same has been annexed. He has also pleaded that Motorcycle No. U.A.06C-5163 was registered for insurance in 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident, which cover note number is 9919129 and was valid w.e.f. 6.9.2004 to 5.9.2005 and was also valid on the date of accident. Therefore, under these circumstances, liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of insurance company. Thus, claim petition filed against opposite party no. 1 is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd./appellant before this Court, filed its written statement denying therein the factum of accident. It has pleaded that liability to pay the compensation to the claimants by answering opposite party is only under the terms and rules of insurance policy and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in case of violation of conditions of insurance policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, by the owner of vehicle. It has further been pleaded that insurance company had not been given any information with regard to alleged accident and therefore no liability of insurance company can be proved with regard to the said accident and claim petition filed against opposite party no. 2 is liable to be dismissed. It has also pleaded that at the time of accident Motorcycle No.U.A.06C-5163 was being plied by its driver unauthorizedly and on account of the same opposite party no. 2-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and therefore, claim petition filed against it is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in 4 the claim petition, which were discussed in detail. 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.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 02.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Bhupendra Singh Negi, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no. 1, Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the evidence available on record clearly reveals that Motorcycle No. U.A.06C-5163 was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently at the time of accident and on account of his rash and negligence the accident took place, in which claimant-Roop Kishore sustained injuries. As far as insurance of offending vehicle in question is concerned, it is also evident from the evidence available on record that offending vehicle No. U.A.06C-5163 was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. It is also clear that the driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence 5 at the time of accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues do not require any interference. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, it appears from the record that claimant, although, has pleaded in the claim petition that he had invested about Rs. One Lac on his treatment, but he has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence in order to establish the injury sustained by him and expenses incurred by him in his medical treatment. The burden is on the shoulder of the claimant to prove that he in fact invested a particular sum of money in his medical treatment, but the claimant has not adduced any evidence as to which part of the body sustained injury and what medical treatment he received and from whom. The claimant has also not produced any medical report indicating therein as to what type of injury he sustained in the accident. The medical bills produced by the claimant also do not indicate that he in fact invested a sum of Rupees One Lac in his medical treatment. On the other hand, medical bills, if are to be treated as genuine, even then the claimant could not succeed to establish that he invested more than Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- in his medical treatment. The Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment and award has, although, recorded a categorical finding that claimant could not establish the nature of injuries sustained by him in the accident by any cogent evidence, even then the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal should 6 have awarded a reasonable amount of compensation on the basis of cogent evidence adduced by the claimant, but the Tribunal has failed in doing so. However, on the basis of medical bills filed by the claimants, I come to the conclusion that claimant is entitled not more than Rs.25,000/- in any case as compensation to be awarded in his favour. It is true that claimant must have sustained some injury in the accident, but he has not established as to how much grievous the injuries sustained by him in the accident and as to how much amount he actually incurred in his medical treatment, but adopting the humanitarian approach I award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the claimant, instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. I further am of the view that claimant would not be entitled any amount as interest on the aforesaid amount as has been awarded by the Tribunal. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation, instead of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and interest of 7% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 7 The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. The excess amount, if any, has been deposited by the appellant, the same be refunded to the appellant. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP