IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 521 of 2007 Dinesh Singh Parmar … Appellant. Versus Mohinder Singh and others …… Respondents. Shri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Dated: 18-9-2008 Hob’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10-10-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 206/2005, Dinesh Singh Parmar V s. Mohinder Singh and others. 2- The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26-4- 2005, at about 12.40 P.M. claimant Dinesh Singh, along with his wife and a son was going riding in Motorcycle U.A. 07-B-7243. When he reached in front of a Hotel situated at some distance from village Manakya, Maruti Wagonar H.P. 03- Temp. 4228 came from opposite direction in a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle, due to which the claimant, his wife and son fell down from the Motorcycle and sustained various injuries. The claimant sustained fracture on his leg and also received injuries on his head and other parts of body. He remained admitted in P.G.I., Chandigarh for about a month in connection with his treatment. He was a Chemist getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,310/- and after the accident he cannot move. He has become permanently disabled. Therefore he filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 2 3- The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the claim before the Tribunal and the claim petition proceeded exparte against them. 4- The opposite party No.3, the New India Assurance Company, who is the insurer of the offending Maruti Wagonar, has filed the written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the fault of the Motorcyclist. The driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 5- The opposite party No.4, United India Insurance Company, has filed the written statement alleging therein that the offending Maruti Wagonar was insured with opposite party no.2, New India Assurance Company and the United India Insurance Company has no concern with the said vehicle, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against it. 6- On the pleading of parties, the learned Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. The claimant in support of his petition adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, on hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment, against the New India Assurance Company. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement before this Court. 3 8- Heard learned counsel for the claimant and the New India Assurance Company and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount towards compensation. He also contended that the disability of the claimant is proved upto 60% and the salary certificate and the bills/cash memos for purchase of medicines were filed, but the learned Tribunal wrongly did not rely on these papers. Learned counsel urged that the salary certificate and the bills be considered and compensation should be enhanced. 10- According to the claimant, at the time of accident he was a Chemist getting a monthly salary of Rs. 7,310/-. The Medical Board has declared the claimant permanently disabled up-to 60%. Although the claimant has filed salary certificate paper No. 48-B issued by Assistant General Manager, Morpen Laboratories Limited, but the same could not proved. The opposite parties have disputed the salary certificate in the written statement. To prove the salary certificate, the claimant could examine the Assistant General Manager or some other official of the Laboratories, but he failed to do so, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly not relied the same. In absence of proof of salary of the claimant, he Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The disability of the claimant was proved upto 60%. The Tribunal on the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum assessed the total loss of the claimant upto 60% after multiplying the same by the multiplier of 18 at the age of 28 years, which comes to Rs. 3,88,800/-. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding 4 recorded by the tribunal for assessing the financial loss due to the permanent disability. The submission of learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in this regard is not tenable. 11- Besides the above amount towards financial loss, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,200/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards physical loss due to the injuries suffered by him. The claimant also filed some bills/cash memos for purchase of medicines. These are photocopies. They have not been proved in evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has ignored these photocopy bills. It was the duty of the claimant to brought on record the original bills and to get them proved in evidence. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum on the total amount of compensation of Rs. 3,88,800/-+ Rs. 5200/-+ Rs. 6000/-= Rs. 4,00,000/-, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against the New India Assurance Company. I do not find sufficient ground for enhancement of the compensation and the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10-10-2007 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5