IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 75 of 2005 Inder Singh … Appellant Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri B.S. Thind, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri K.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Dehradun in M.A.C.T. No. 71 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2000 at about 06:30 p.m., the claimant – Manoj Kumar was going from Tilak Road to Ganghola on his motorcycle. When he reached near Chirbagh, a bus bearing registration No. UP7B/4366 coming from Circuit House, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which he sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the military hospital. At the time of the accident, the claimant/injured was a student of B.Sc. (first year) and used to earn Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing tuition etc. Therefore, he has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Bhagwan Singh, driver of the bus in question contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in 2 the claim petition. He has further contended that on the date of accident, the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. It has further alleged that the driver of the bus was having the valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against the applicant. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – Inder Singh, owner of the bus also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The amount of compensation is very exorbitant. Hence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. Opposite party No. 3 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The driver of the bus was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It has also pleaded that on the date of accident, the bus in question was not insured with the applicant. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against it. 6. 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. 1,85,000/- in favour of the claimant. 3 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri B.S. Thind, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri K.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 9. In order to support his case, the claimant – Manoj Kumar has produced himself as P.W. 1 and Dr. Narendra Dutt (P.W.2). He has also filed copy of Chik report, discharge slip, verification report of motorcycle, site plan etc. before the court below. The Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving has considered the evidence of the witnesses, site plan, technical report etc. and has came to the conclusion that on the date of accident, the bus was being driven on the extremely right side of the road and hit the motorcycle of the claimant due to which he sustained serious injuries. The driver could not produce himself before the Tribunal for his cross-examination. The Tribunal after perusing the entire evidence as well as material available on record held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I do not find any ground to interfere in this issue. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal decided the petition without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that on the date of accident, the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the Tribunal could not recorded any finding in this regard. 4 13.. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 made the rival contention and invited my attention towards the issue No. 4 decided by the Tribunal. He has also submitted that the owner could not produce any cover note etc. which may show that the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has further submitted that it is duty of the owner of the vehicle to produce the cover note etc. which reveals that the bus in question was insured with the Company. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record and I could not find any document, which reveals that the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Further from the perusal of the order sheet, which shows that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity of hearing but he could not produce himself before the court below therefore, the application for cross examination of the witnesses was rejected. The Tribunal has categorically recorded in its finding while deciding the issue No. 4 that the owner of the vehicle could not produce any cover note etc. which may prove that the bus in question was insured with the Insurance Company. Only on the basis of the statement, it cannot be said that the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. It was the duty of the owner to produce the document in this regard. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The issue decided by the Tribunal against the appellant as well as driver of the bus is perfectly justified. 15. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal 5 considered Rs. 15,000/- per annum or Rs. 1,250/- per month as notional income of the claimant/injured. The claimant sustained 50% disability and the Tribunal considered that the claimant could not done his work for three to four more months. The claimant remained in under treatment for six months, in this way the amount comes to Rs. 7,500/- (1250 X 6). The claimant was aged about 18 years and considering this fact the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation adopted the multiplier of ‘17’ and after adopting the said multiplier the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,27,500/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental and physical pain and further Rs. 25,000/- for future mental, physical difficulties. The Tribunal in lump sum awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The appellant has failed to prove this fact that on the date of accident, the bus in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of compensation upon the driver as well as owner of the vehicle in question. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly reasonable. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. The amount, if any, (including the statutory amount) deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 24.09.2008 ASWAL