IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A. O. No. 589/2005 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation ….. Appellant. Versus Madhusudan Uniyal and 3 others ….Respondents. Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for claimant/respondent No.1. Dated: 02-01-2009 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, arise out against the judgment and award 15-10-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge/ II F.T.C., Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 216/2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 30-8-2004, the claimant/respondent Madhusudan Uniyal was travelling in Bus No. U.P. 07-K- 9468 for Doiwala. At about 4.30 P.M. when the said Bus reached near Manimai Temple, Dehradun Road, Doiwala, it fell in a deep ditch due to rash and negligent driving. In the said accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries. His primary treatment was got done in Doon Hospital. Thereafter he remained admitted in Mahant Indresh Hospital, Dehradun during the period 1-9-2004 to 24-9- 2004 in connection with his treatment. According to the claimant he spent about three lacs rupees on his treatment. At the time of accident he was 65 years of age and he used to earn about Rs. 5,000/- per month from doing the work of priest. Therefore he filed petition claiming compensation from the opposite parties. 2 3- The opposite party No.1, Bus driver did not contest the petition, hence the petition was heard exparte against him. 4- The opposite party No.2, owner of the offending bus filed his written statement and alleged that the Bus was being run under the control of Uttaranchal State Transport Corporation hence he cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. However he alleged that the bus was insured with United India Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving license. 5- The opposite party no.3, United India Insurance Company also filed its written statement and alleged that the driver was not having valid driving license and the company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 6- The opposite party no.4, Uttaranchal State Transport Corporation also filed its written statement and admitted the accident. However, it has been alleged by the Uttaranchal State Transport Corporation that the bus was insured with United India Insurance Company and its owner was opposite party No.2, and as per the agreement entered between the Corporation and the owner of the bus, owner as well as the insurer of the bus are liable to pay compensation. 7- The learned tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 8- Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3 1,02,590/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the owner, driver and Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and the directed the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 1 ½ months. 9- Feeling aggrieved the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred this petition before this Court. 10- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents. 11- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the offending Bus was being run under the contract with the appellant corporation and as per the condition of the contract the appellant corporation is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and the tribunal has committed an error by directing the Corporation/appellant to deposit the amount of compensation. 12- I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal. The learned tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that it is not a case of the owner and the appellant/corporation that before entering into agreement they have obtained permission from the insurer of the Bus for plying the bus under the control of the Corporation/appellant, therefore, the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. It is admitted case of the parties that the offending bus was being run under the control of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and the owner has only the ownership right of the said Bus. The 4 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation could not file any such agreement before the learned tribunal which may show that there was any such agreement between the owner and the Corporation that in the event of any mishap the Transport Corporation will not be liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, the finding given by the learned tribunal directing the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation to deposit the amount of compensation cannot be said to be against law. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding given by the tribunal. 13- As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,590/- towards medical expenses. The claimant has filed medical bills in respect of above amount awarded by the tribunal under the head of medical expenses. The tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the injured @ 3000/- from the work of priest and has taken the loss of income suffered by the claimant due to the disability as Rs. 600/- per month looking the percentage of disability suffered by the claimant, i.e. 20%. The injured at the time of accident was 70 years of age, therefore, the tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 5. Hence the amount of compensation towards loss of income was assessed as Rs. 600/- X 12 X5= 36,000/-. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the physical and mental agony to be suffered by him in whole of the life, due to the fractures sustained by the claimant in the accident. The injured has suffered fractures on his face, right shoulder and neck, therefore, looking the nature of injuries, the above amounts awarded by the tribunal towards physical pain suffered by the claimant and to be suffered by him in future, cannot be said to be unreasonable. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5 6000/- for the economic loss suffered by the claimant as he could not do any work due to the injuries suffered by him. In this way total amount comes to Rs. 40,590/- + Rs. 36000/- + Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 6000/-= 1,02,590/-. In my view the tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount of compensation. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment and in my opinion the rate of interest needs no interference. 14- For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15-10-2005 is hereby confirmed. 16- The statutory amount of compensation deposited with this court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6