IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 213 of 2005 Girdhari Lal …. Appellant. Versus Kedar Lal and 3 others … Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Dated: 11-8-2008 Hon’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 26.4.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Chamoli, in MACP No. 42 of 2004. 2- The facts of the case, in short, are that on 17- 6-2003, Kedar Lal, (claimant) was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 07-K-9808 from Mandal to Nandprayag. At about 12.30 P.M. at Bus Stand Chamoli, when the claimant was getting down from the jeep, another jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6413 came there at a high speed and dashed him from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries on his left leg. He was treated at District Hospital Gopeshwar. The claimant filed petition for a sum of Rs. 1,53,100/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of offending Jeep No. UP 07-C- 6413 contested the petition by filing his written statement and alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed. 2 4- The Opposite Party No.2, State also filed written statement and alleged that it has wrongly been impleaded as respondent and prayed for dismissal of the same against it. 5- The Opposite Party No.3, did not contest the case, hence it was heard and decided exparte against him. 6- The opposite party No.4, The New India Assurance Company, filed its written statement denying that Jeep No. U.P. 07-K-9808 and Jeep No. UP 07-C- 6413, were not insured with it and the drivers had no valid driving license. Therefore, the insurance company has denied its liability to pay any compensation. 7- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 33,658/- as compensation against the owner of Jeep No. UP-07-C/ 6413 along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing petition till the actual date of payment. 8- Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending jeep has preferred this appeal before this Court. 9- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent/claimant and perused the record. 10- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant did not adduce any reliable 3 and independent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant. He also submitted that the claim petition was the result of long standing enmity between the appellant and the father of the claimant, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and without any basis and legal proof allowed the claim against the appellant. Learned counsel further alleged that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation without any cogent and reliable evidence. 11- On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is independent and reliable evidence on record which proves that the claimant sustained injuries by the negligence of the driver of Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6413 owned by the appellant and the learned Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability upon the owner of the offending jeep. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on different heads on the basis of documentary evidence on record and the award cannot be said to be exorbitant. 12- In view of submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the first question which arises for consideration of this Court is - ‘as to whether the claimant/respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to the rashness of the driver of Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6414 or not?.’ 13- From perusal of impugned judgment and award it reveals that the learned Tribunal has framed issue No.1 on the point of negligence. According to 4 claimant, on 17-6-2003 he was going in the marriage party of the son of his maternal uncle, travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 07-K-9808. At about 12.30 in the noon the said jeep stopped at Bus Stand Chamoli. When the claimant got down there, suddenly Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6413 came there at high speed and dashed him from behind, due to which he sustained injury on the lower part of his left leg. P.W.2, Bheem Lal is the eyewitness of the occurrence. This witness has corroborated the claimant’s version. He has deposed that he was sitting on the back seat of Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6413. According to him when the claimant was getting down from the another jeep U.P. 07-K-9808 at Bus Stand Chamoli, Girdhari Lal, driver of Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-6413, dashed him from behind due to which he sustained injuries. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of this witness, which may discredit his testimony. No reason has been assigned to this witness on behalf of the opposite parties as to why he would depose wrong facts pertaining to the accident. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the cogent and reliable testimony of this eyewitness. Further, the first information report of the accident was also lodged and the police after investigation has submitted charge sheet against Girdhari Lal, driver of the offending jeep to face trial U/Ss 279 and 338 I.P.C. Therefore, in view of the material available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of the offending jeep owned by the appellant. The point is decided accordingly against the owner of the offending jeep/appellant. 5 14- The next question arises for determination as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant or it is just amount. 15- The claimant has filed bills relating to ex-ray, prescriptions, and purchase of medicines paper No. 39-C to 53-C the total amount of which is Rs. 8658/-. Besides it, he also filed paper No. 54-C, hotel bill, for a sum of Rs.1560/-, paper No. 55-C, bill of purchase of fruits for a sum of Rs. 1680/- and paper No. 56-C bill for attendant. The Tribunal did not award the sums shown in the hotel bill, bill of fruits etc and awarded a sum of Rs. 8658/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for seriousness of the injuries and further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The claimant sustained fracture in his leg due to the injury suffered by him in the accident and he was assessed for 13% permanent disability. The disability certificate paper No. 42-C has been filed. The Tribunal further held that the claimant could not prove his income by adducing reliable evidence therefore a lump sum of amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for the disability suffered by him. In this way the total sum of Rs. 33,658/- has been awarded. In my opinion the learned Tribunal has awarded a justified amount of compensation under different heads as stated above. The second point is decided accordingly. Therefore, the impugned award do not require any interference by this Court. 16- For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 26-4-2005 is confirmed. 6 18- The statutory amount deposited before this Court, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 7