IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 181 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.8.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ..Appellant. Versus. Hanif Mohd. and another ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinod Gupta, counsel for R-1. Respondent No.2 in person. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. The appellant Insurance Company, by means of this appeal, has challenged the award dated 4.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.4,69,000/- in favour of the claimant and also held that the claimant is entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was running a cloth shop at Rajgarh. He was coming towards Solan on his motorcycle when he was hit by a Car No.HP-12B-2122 which was owned and driven by Sh.Manoj Kumar Gupta and insured with the appellant. The appellant filed an application under - 2 - Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act but the same was rejected and the appellant was not given any right to contest the claim on all grounds. 3. Sh.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant insisted that the application was wrongly rejected. In my view, the application was not wrong rejected since the owner-cum- driver did not at all collude with the claimant. He was represented by counsel and there is no material to show any collusion. 4. Even otherwise, I have gone into the main objection of the Insurance Company with regard to the quantum. True it may be, that the method followed by the learned Tribunal is not correct but I find that the amount awarded as a whole is reasonable. 5. As mentioned hereinabove the claimant was running a cloth shop and owned a motorcycle. The learned Tribunal took his income at Rs.5000/- per month, but, in my opinion, it should have been much higher since a person who earns only Rs.5000/- per month cannot afford to run a motor cycle. The claimant was also running a shop which he had rented out and it would not be unreasonable to assess the income between Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant has not been awarded any amount for future disability, discomfort etc. He has not been awarded any amount for the loss of income actually suffered i.e. during the period of his hospitalization and - 3 - also when he was on bed rest and could not run the shop. No doubt, the learned Tribunal has awarded higher amount on account of loss of income but if all things are balanced out, I am of the considered view that the amount awarded is reasonable. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. August 8, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.