IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 243 of 2008 Smt. Seema Sharma … Appellant Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Smt. Seema Sharma, (in person) appearing on behalf of the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 WITH Appeal From Order No. 204 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Seema Sharma & others … Respondents Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Seema Sharma, (in person) appearing on behalf of the appellant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 14.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 8 of 2007. One appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant, while another has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, both these appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2006, the claimant/appellant – Smt. Seema Sharma met with a accident. She was crossing the road and suddenly, vehicle No. UP10C/9301 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant/appellant, due to which, she sustained multiple injuries. Therefore, she filed 2 the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation against the driver, owner of the vehicle as well as insurer of the vehicle. 3. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement alleging therein that the claim petition was lodged by the claimant in order to disturb them. It has further alleged that the liability to pay any compensation lies upon the Insurer of the vehicle in question. 4. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition alleging therein that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company/applicant was not entitled to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available before it, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant vide judgment and award dated 14.02.2008. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant has preferred appeal No. 243 of 2008 for enhancing the amount of compensation. Appeal No. 204 of 2008 has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 3 7. Heard Smt. Seema Sharma appearing in person, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent/New India Assurance Company Ltd. and perused the record. 8. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question that appears to be completely justified and I am also in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments that the Tribunal has committed error by not considering this aspect that the claimant/appellant is still under treatment and awarded the amount without considering the injuries sustained by her. She has further submitted that the she has suffered 17 stitches on his head, due to which she is not doing her profession easily. 10. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made the rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the document available on record. He has submitted that the claimant has filed medical bills of Rs. 18,000/- and she has no permanent disability, in spite of knowing this fact, the Tribunal has fell in error by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 11. In order to revolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the entire material available before me. As far as the 4 submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is not disputed that she has received 17 stitches on her head and the Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation considered this aspect. As far as the medical bills submitted by the claimant is concerned, Dr. N.K. Agarwal has stated in his deposition that the bills submitted by the claimant were not proved and verified. There is nothing on record, which may suggest me to enhance the amount of compensation. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant as well as considering the nature of profession of the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. 12. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgments and awards. The appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 14. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in A.O. No. 204 of 2008 before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 15. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. No. 204 of 2008. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.10.2008 ASWAL