IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 141 of 2006 Sri Rakesh Chandra Semalti ... Appellant. Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/FTC Dehradun and two others ... Respondents. Mr. Pramod Belwal, Advocate for the appellant. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents. With A.O. No. 268 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager ..Appellant. Vs. Sri Rakesh Chandra Semalti and another .. Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pramod Belwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dated: 11-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both above appeals arise out of the same judgment and award dated 21-1-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC-V, Dehradun, in MACP No. 52/2005, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 2-1-2003, the claimant Rakesh Chandra Samalti, was going towards Rishikesh riding in his Motorcycle D.I.W. 9993 and when he reached in front of Gulshan Hair Dress, Haridwar Road, a Bus bearing registration No. U. 07-C- 4755, came there at a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle on wrong side, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to Hospital at Rishikesh and later-on to C.M.I. Hospital, Dehradun. According to the claimant he has undergone various operations and he has to remain bed-ridden for about 12 months. The claimant also alleged in the claim petition that he has become permanently disabled. He suffered loss of income due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, he filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs. Ten Lacs. 3- The Opposite Parties filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and alleged that the accident had occurred due to own negligence of the Motorcyclist. It was also alleged that the registered owner and insurer of the Motorcycle involved in the accident have not been arrayed party to the claim, hence the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 4- The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed following issues in the claim petition:- 1- Whether on 02-01-2003 near Gulshan Hair Dresser on Shyampur-Haridwar Motor Road, P.S. Rishikesh, the driver of Bus bearing registration No. U.P.07-C-4755, driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner hit the Motorcyclist due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries?. 2- To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to get?. 4- The claimant in support of his case produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Opposite Parties, along with the written statement, filed copies of F.I.R. and departmental inquiry. 5- The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties, and considering the material on record, allowed the claim petition to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till final payment, payable by the opposite parties. 6- Feeling aggrieved claimant has preferred A.O. No. 141 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation and the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has filed A.O. No. 268 of 2006. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the Transport Corporation has submitted that the accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of Motorcyclist involved in the accident and the petition was bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed error by holding the sole negligence of the Bus driver. He also contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and without proportionality of the evidence on record, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9- On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the claimant/injured has become permanently disabled for his entire life, yet the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. Therefore, the award should be enhanced. 10- So far as the argument of learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, pertaining to contributory negligence is concerned, although the Corporation has taken this plea in its written statement, but the Corporation has not made efforts to prove the said factum. The Tribunal has discussed the point of contributory negligence on issue No. 1. The claimant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and in his examination-in- chief has deposed that the Bus bearing registration U.P. 07-C-4755 was being driver at high speed and dashed the Motorcyclist on wrong side. The above statement of the claimant has been supported by Jagdish Prasad, P.W.2, an eye witness of the accident. This witness has stated that the Bus U.P. 07-C-4755 came at a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle on wrong side. O.P. Pawan Singh although in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accident had occurred on left side but in the cross-examination he has admitted that the accident had occurred on right side. This fact has also been supported by site-plan, paper No. 17-C, according to which the Roadways Bus was on wrong side and the Motorcyclist was going towards his left side. The Opposite Party Pawan Singh also admitted that the Bus had taken sharp turn when he applied the brake and this fact itself establish that the Bus was being driven at a high speed at the spot. In view of above facts, I am of the opinion, that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to negligence and rashness of the bus driver. There is no force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the Transport Corporation and the same is rejected. 11- As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- as compensation due to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident. The claimant has suffered a disability of 40%. Disability certificate paper No. 32-C has been filed. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 34,000/- towards expenses on the medical treatment of the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant has accepted before the Tribunal that his sum of Rs. 34,000/- was incurred by the claimant on his treatment. In the claim petition it has been alleged that the injured was doing the business of selling milk and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/-. It has also been alleged that at the time of accident he was 25 years of age. But no document has been filed to prove the age and income of the injured before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the claimant has not been able to prove his monthly income by filing income certificate or convincing evidence in this regard and the loss of income can be assessed on the basis of disability certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 63,000/- for loss of income due to disability of 40%. A further sum of Rs. 5,000/- is also awarded towards pain and suffering. Thus the total sum of Rs. 34,000/- + 63,000/-+5,000/- = Rs. 1,02,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of final payment. In view of above discussion I do not find any illegality and infirmity in calculating the amount of compensation. 12- For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly A.O. No. 141/2006 and A.O. No. 268/2006 are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 21-1-2006 is confirmed. 14- Let the amount of compensation, if any, deposited in this court, at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to Tribunal concerned. 15- A copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 268 of 2006. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB