IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 487 of 2007 Date of decision : 26.11.2009 Shiv Kumar …Appellant Versus Sita Ram …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that claimant Sita Ram filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident involving Scooter No. HP-06-0869 owned and driven by the appellant, Shiv Kumar. It was alleged that when the claimant was walking on the side of the road, a scooter came from Rampur side at a high speed and hit him, which resulted in fracture of both bones of the right leg. In the reply filed by the respondent it was stated that no accident had taken place between the petitioner and the scooter in question. While on the one hand it was stated that the petitioner was not injured by the vehicle of the respondent, in the same reply, the respondent stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the treatment of the petitioner. Why this amount 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 was paid has not been explained. It is not as if the respondent is a rich philanthropist and has paid this amount by way of charity. It would also not be out of place to mention that an F.I.R. No. 20 of 2004 was lodged on the same day in which also it was mentioned that the claimant had suffered injuries with the scooter in question. The medical record also shows that the claimant was alleged to have received the injuries in a road accident when he was hit by a scooter. The injuries were caused on 20th February, 2004 and both, the F.I.R as well as the medical record, are of the same day. This contemporaneous evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the claimant had suffered injuries with the scooter. The owner and driver of the scooter while appearing in the witness box admits that he was in Bithal village where the accident is alleged to have taken place. According to him his scooter met with an accident with a jeep but the claimant was not injured in the same. This self serving statement of the owner-cum-driver is of no use. He admits that he has not lodged any report with the police or any other authority with regard to the accident of his scooter with the jeep. In cross-examination he now states that he has not given any money for the treatment of the claimant which is totally against his own stand taken up in the written reply where he had stated that he had spent Rs.20,000/- for the treatment of the claimant. No reliance can be placed on the statement of such a witness who backs out of the averments made in Court itself. Therefore, I have no hesitation in upholding the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the issue of negligence. 3 As far as quantum is concerned, to say the least, the compensation is abysmally low. The claimant alleges that he was working in the sand-mine and was earning Rs.6000/- per month. Even if this is not accepted to be true, he was an able bodied person and would have at least earned the minimum wages prevalent at that time which were Rs.70/- per day i.e. Rs.2100/- per month. PW-3, Dr. Lokender Sharma, has clearly stated that for two years the claimant would not be able to do any manual or labour work. The claimant belongs to this class whose to do manual and labour work and even loss of income for two years would be more than Rs.40,000/-. The award of Rs.57,293/- in fact has not taken into consideration many other aspects. However, since there are neither any cross objection nor any cross-appeal, the amount cannot be enhanced. There is no merit in the appeal which is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 26th November, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.