IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 304 of 2007 Ramkhilawan … Appellant Vs Pankaj Pawar & another … Respondents Sri B. Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 07.06.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 105 of 2001, Ramkhilawan Vs Pankaj Pawar & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that he appellant was working in the Election Office, Haridwar as a Clerk. On 04.09.1998 at about 05:15 p.m., he was going to the Election Office, Haridwar on Vicky (Moped) No. UP10/1762, when he reached near Chinmay Decree College, suddenly a Vikram (three wheeler) bearing No. UP10B/2568, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, dashed the said moped of the appellant, due to which the appellant, who was sitting as a pillion rider sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, he has spent Rs. 80,000/- on his medical treatment and remained absent from the office for three months. At the time of the accident, he was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. 2 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in the claim petition. 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. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 40,768/- in favour of the claimant/appellant vide judgment and award dated 07.06.2003. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri B. Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment, it is clear that the Tribunal decided the issue with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the basis of the statement of Ramkhilawan, who has stated in his deposition that on 04.09.1998 at about 05:15 p.m., he was going on vehicle No. UP10/1762 as a pillion rider, when he reached at Chinmay Degree College, suddenly, a tempo No. UP10B/2568, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said vehicle due to which, he sustained serious injuries. He has also stated that the moped 3 was at the speed of 15-20 kmph while the tempo was coming at the speed of 50-60 kmph. The opposite parties did not produce any witness in order to support their case. Therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of the statement made by the appellant has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has contended that the Tribunal did not consider this aspect that the appellant has spent Rs. 80,000/- on his medical treatment and he remained on bed for three months. Therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced considering the above facts. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the record and come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. Perusal of the statement of Ramkhilawan it reveals that he has submitted medical bills of Rs. 28,767.75. There is no documentary evidence available on record which may suggest that he has actually incurred Rs. 80,000/- on his medical treatment. Paper No. 36C reveals that he has incurred Rs. 28,767.75 on his medical treatment, therefore, the Tribunal has calculated the same amount while awarding the amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses. Further from the perusal of paper No. 39B, which is statement of Ramkhilawan wherein he has himself stated that no deduction was made by the Department from his salary during the course of his treatment. It shows that he was given the salary for three months when he was confined to bed and has not suffered any financial loss. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards 4 journey performed by him during his medical treatment and further Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and physical agony. Thus the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 40,768/-, which appears to be quite reasonable. 10. The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.10.2008 ASWAL