IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 1079 of 2001 Old No. 815 of 1998 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office at 3- Mideleton Street, Calcutta, through its administrative Officer, (Legal) D. Sarkar, presently posted at Divisional Office 23, M.G. Marg, Allahabad .. Appellant. Vs. 1. Suresh Singh S/o Chandan Singh, R/o Vilalge Maitheiya, P.S. Tallital District Nainital. 2. Pooran Singh S/o Chandan Singh, R/o Village Khairna, Garam Pani, District Nainital (owner) …Respondents. Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents. Dated: 11.03.2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred by National Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12-5-1998, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ II Addl. District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.T. No. 287 of 1996. 2- Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14-6-1995 at 9.30 P.M. the claimant/respondent Suresh Singh was going in truck No. U.P. 02-B/3935 and when he reached near Jeolikot the trucks fell into a ditch and the claimant received grievous injuries. His leg was broken. The claimant filed claim petition for award of compensation. 3- The respondent/owner of the truck in his written statement admitted the accident and alleged that the truck was insured with appellant/National Insurance Company and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 4- The National Insurance Company admitted the insurance cover of the truck in question but alleged that the driver had no valid driving license and excessive amount of compensation has been claimed. 5- The Tribunal framed relevant issues on the basis of pleading of parties. Thereafter, the Tribunal after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, awarded Rs. 2,08,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of award and @ 9% per annum from the date of award to the date of payment to be payable by the National Insurance Company. 6- Feeling aggrieved the National Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 7- The claimant/respondent also filed cross- objection for enhancement of the compensation. 8- Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the claimant/respondent to press the cross objection. 9- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the claimant. He also submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding the amount of compensation on different heads. He urged that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation and the same is liable to be reduced by this Court. 10- I have gone through the impugned award and perused the material on record. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- towards loss of income on account of disability; Rs. 25,000/- spent on treatment; Rs. 50,000/- future expenses to be incurred by the claimant and Rs. 25,000/- for pain and sufferings. 11- According to the claimant he remained admitted for 22 days in the ‘Krishna Nursing Home Haldwani’ in connection with his medical treatment, due to injuries sustained in the accident and he spent about Rs. 70,000/- on the treatment. Due to the injuries sustained by the claimant he became disabled. The claimant was a driver at the time of accident and according to him he was getting Rs. 2,000/- per month, besides Rs. 50/- per day for food. The Tribunal has accepted this amount of Rs. 2,000/- as salary of the claimant and adopting a multiplier of 10 has rightly awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- after calculating it at 45%. The tribunal has calculated the above loss of salary keeping in view the disabled certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer dated 21.4.98. The claimant also filed prescriptions of medical expenses before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 25,000/- for medical expenditure. 12- So far as the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for future expenses to be incurred by the claimant, is concerned, it has come in evidence that the leg of the claimant was operated and iron rod has been inserted in it. His leg was shortened by six inches and he has to walk with the help of crutch, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding the amount of Rs. 50,000/- for future treatment. The Tribunal also awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a total amount of Rs. 2,08,000/- as compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. 13- In view of above facts of the case the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The cross objection also lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly the appeal as well as the cross objection are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. No order as to cost. 15- The amount of compensation deposited in appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP