IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 715/2006 Satnam Singh … Appellant. Versus Anil Kumar Pandey …. Respondent. Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Dated: 04-03-2009 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arise out against the judgment and award dated 28-9-2002, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/ F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 177 of 1999, Anil Kumar Pandey, Vs. Satnam Singh. 2- The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Anil Kumar Pandey ( claimant ) filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for compensation with the allegation that on 21-3-1996 at about 7.45 P.M. near village Rajpura No.2 Link Road P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar the driver of Truck No. USA-6751, dashed him in a rash and negligent manner due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Gadarpur and from there he was referred to Bazpur. After getting some treatment there he was referred to Moradabad and Delhi for better treatment. According to him in Vivekanand Hospital and Research Center, Moradabad he spent about 50,000/- rupees. 3- The opposite party filed his written statement and denied the allegations of the petition. He alleged that his truck did not dash the claimant and false report has been lodged against his driver at the Gadarpur P.S. The 2 driver has been acquitted by the Court in the criminal case instituted against him on the basis of the above report lodged at P.S. Gadarpur. The claimant has wrongly demanded compensation against him and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4- The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, claimant adduced evidence in support of his case. 5- The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available on record, decreed the claim petition against the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending truck has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation, contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive rate of interest and the same should be reduced. 9- Perusal of record reveals that the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and narrated the facts of the case. According to him on 21.3.96 he was going to Sugar Mill Gadarpur riding in a cycle to perform his duty. 3 At about 7.45 A.M. when he reached near Rajpura No.2, Link Road, the driver of truck No. USA 6751, coming from opposite direction, dashed him on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, and the driver fled away from the spot. The above statement of the claimant is supported by the independent version of P.W.2, Ajay Kumar Pandey. This witness has deposed that claimant Anil Kumar Pandey was ahead of him and this witness was also going to Sugar Mill Gadarpur to perform his duty. Suddenly, driver of truck No. USA 6751 dashed the claimant in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side. He further deposed that they got admitted the injured in Govt. Hospital Gadarpur and lodged the F.I.R. at P.S. Gadarpur. The opposite party/owner did not adduce any evidence to controvert the assertion of the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in question. 10- As regards the amount of compensation, the claimant produced medicine bills amounting to Rs. 14,000/-. He further produced medicine bill amounting to Rs. 5,315/-. He also remained admitted in Vivekenand Hospital from 30-3-96 to 9-4-96 and during this period he could not perform his duty. The Tribunal looking to the above facts of the case and also the pain and suffering suffered by the claimant awarded a total sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the compensation. I do not find it an excessive amount. In my opinion the tribunal has awarded a justified amount of compensation. However, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is certainly on higher side. The tribunal has awarded the interest @ 9% per annum during the pendency of petition and for future also. In my opinion the interest should be 6% per 4 annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 11- For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is liable to be modified so far as interest part is concerned. 12- The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified up to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal, shall be paid by the opposite party/appellant, to the claimant/respondent along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of @9% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 13- Let the amount of compensation, if any, deposited with this court, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) ISB