IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No.154 of 2006. Date of decision :20.11.2009 Ved Parkash Garg …Appellant Versus Amar Singh & Another …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For respondent No.2: None. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the owner of Truck No.HP-15-2559 against the judgment and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan. On 30.6.2003, a loaded truck carrying empty L.P.G. Cylinders, traveling from Dharampur to Parwanoo, was met with an accident. At the relevant point of time Dalsher Singh, respondent No.2 herein, was driving the truck. The claimant, who was a cleaner, met with an accident when it rolled down into a steep gorge. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 On the settled issues the learned Tribunal, relying upon the testimony of the petitioner, who remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for a period of from 30.6.2003 to 1.9.2003 for treatment, corroborated by the evidence of his mother, PW-3 and the copy of the First Information Report Ex.PW-1/A registered with the Police Station, Dharampur, on 30.6.2003 held that the appellant is liable for compensating the injured to the extent of Rs.1,40,000/- PW-6, Dr. J.P. Sharma, proved the disability of the petitioner to the extent of 10% so far his right lower limb is concerned. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, namely: Pecuniary damages. i) Expenditure on medical treatment. Rs. 30,000/- Non Pecuniary damages. i) Pain and sufferings. Rs. 30,000/- ii) Loss of amenities of life. Rs. 20,000/- iii) Loss of future earning and general damages. Rs. 60,000/- Total: Rs. 1,40,000/- The appellant has proved on record the medical expenditure incurred as also disability suffered by him. There is no evidence on the record to show to the contrary that he was not admitted in hospital from 30.6.2003 to 1.9.2003. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged that not only 3 negligence on the part of the driver was proved, but the accident never occurred in the manner as alleged as the vehicle was parked by the side of the road. I cannot persuade myself to hold that this is the state of affairs and that the accident has not been established or that the claim, which has been allowed, is excessive. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 20, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.