IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 141 of 2008 Kalesh Chandra … Appellant Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another … Respondents Mrs. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 15.01.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim No. 118 of 2007, Kalesh Singh Vs Ashu Kumar & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.02.2007, Sri Kailash Singh was coming from the D.C.M., Sugar Mill on his bullock-cart, when he reached near Village Missar at about 10:00 p.m., a mini truck bearing registration No. UP25/7924 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said bullock-cart from behind, due to which, he received serious injuries. According to the claimant, in this accident his Dunlop (loader) completely destroyed whose cost was Rs. 25,000/- due to which he was also getting loss of Rs. 6,000/- per month. He has further stated that he has incurred Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Ashu Kumar contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal 2 concerned alleging therein that he was the owner of mini truck No. UP25/7924. He has further alleged that the driver of the vehicle was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. He has further pleaded that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. therefore, the liability of compensation, if any, lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – The New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal. It has pleaded in the written statement that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence. The driver and the owner of the truck were duty bound to give the information regarding the said accident, but they have not informed about the accident. Therefore, the claim petition against the present answering party is liable to be dismissed. The income and expenditure on treatment of claimant has wrongly been claimed, therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 15.01.2008. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3 7. Heard Mrs. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. She has contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount which the claimant spent on his medical treatment and the Tribunal also not considered, this aspect that during hospitalization, he was suffering loss of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The total amount of compensation appears to be on the lower side and it should be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has made the rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, awarded the amount under the head of medical treatment. He has further submitted that the claimant has not produced any document which may show that he had actually incurred Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly just and proper. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly, awarded the amount of compensation. From the perusal of the record, it appears to me that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature. Further the claimant has not produced any evidence, which may show that the injuries sustained by him are serious in nature. According to the claimant, in the said accident the Dunlop Cart costing to Rs. 25,000/- has completely destroyed but he has not produced any evidence in 4 support of his version. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards simple injuries, Rs. 1,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 3,000/- for repairing of Dunlop Cart and further the Tribunal awarded Rs. 700/- towards labour charges as the claimant remained in the hospital for seven days. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the actual date of payment. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be perfectly justified, in the eye of law. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.08.2008 ASWAL