THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 504 of 2007 Yogesh Sharma …Appellant Versus Sri Kushal Singh and others …Respondents Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, Advocate for the appellant Sri Manish Dalakoti, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: 23-07-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 25.08.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 145/2006, Yogesh Sharma versus Kushal Singh and others, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,83,000/- as compensation along with 7% interest, to the claimant. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.05.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. when claimant was going to Panchayat Ghar, Rampur Road from Parvatiya Mines, Rampur Road, Haldwani on his motorcycle, a vehicle Three Wheeler bearing No. U.A.04-C/4675 which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the claimant from the rear side, as a result of which the claimant fell down and received serious injuries on his person. It has been alleged that at the time of 2 accident claimant was employed as Godown Incharge in Parvatiya Mines and used to get a sum of Rs.5,800/- as salary from the said job. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-Khushal Singh filed his written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and alleged that accident was caused due to own negligence of claimant himself. On the date of accident vehicle of answering respondent was insured; it was having all valid papers; driver of the said vehicle was holding valid driving licence, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement and took the additional plea that insurance company had not been given any information by the owner of vehicle with regard to the accident. The said accident is the result of collision of two vehicles; therefore the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Opposite party no. 3-Deewan Singh, driver of offending vehicle, filed his written statement admitting the factum of accident and alleged that said accident did not take place due to his negligence, rather it was caused due to own rash and negligent driving of motorcyclist himself. The answering respondent was having valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues. Parties led 3 evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.2,83,000/- as compensation, against opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 25.08.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, Sri Manish Dalakoti, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. The application for filing the additional evidence has been moved by the appellant-applicant at the stage of appeal on the ground that he could not file the disability certificate and salary slip during the trial and therefore, he is indenting to file the same at this stage. The conduct of appellant-applicant indicates that on account of inaction on the part of appellant- applicant he could not produce any evidence before the Tribunal with regard to his disability certificate and salary slip. In view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 (aa) of C.P.C., it is for the applicant- appellant to show that inspite of the exercise of due 4 diligence it could not obtain the proper documents, but nothing could be indicated before me which may suggest that there was an exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant to produce disability certificate and salary slip before the Tribunal. I, therefore, do not find force in the application filed by appellant-applicant for adducing additional evidence at this stage. Misc. Application No.3258 of 2007 for adducing additional evidence, is accordingly rejected. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has confined his argument to this aspect that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company has supported the impugned judgment and award. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence available on record held that on 07.05.2006 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Three Wheeler No. U.A.04-C/4675, as a result of which claimant received serious injuries on his person. The said finding had not been challenged by the insurance company, as such, it has attained the finality as no appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Perusal of record reveals that the said finding does not require any interference. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are cogent and clear. I am completely in agreement with the 5 finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Three Wheeler No. U.A.04-C/4675 at the time of accident. The Tribunal further held that driver of offending vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident; all the papers of vehicle in question were valid and vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. I do not find any reason to disturb the said finding and the same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue no. 3 in the impugned judgment and award. The record reveals that claimant has filed medical bills amounting to Rs.2,58,000/- pertaining to his medical treatment, which has been proved by the doctor. The claimant also examined Dr. J.S. Khurana as PW-3 who has proved the medical bills and prescription produced by the claimant. Therefore, I am of the view that claimant is entitled for the said amount towards his medical treatment. The claimant also stated in the claim petition that he remained admitted in hospital for one month and doctor advised him rest for about a period of nine months and he could not do his work during this period. It is an admitted fact that at the time of accident claimant was employed as Godown Incharge in Parvatiya Mines and he used to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the said job. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant under the head of serious injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The Tribunal further 6 awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant under the head of economic loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained in accident. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,83,000/- has been awarded to the claimant as compensation. I, therefore, am of the view that the Tribunal awarded a just and proper amount of compensation to the claimant and it needs no interference. As far as interest is concerned, in my view, the same also appears to be justified and requires no interference. I do not find any illegality in the said findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and the same deserve to be confirmed. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.08.2007 passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP