IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 479 of 2005 with FAO No. 225 of 2006 Reserved on: 28.08.2009 Date of decision: 17.09.2009 1. FAO No. 479 of 2005: Avtar Singh ... Appellant Versus Jeet Singh and another … Respondents 2. FAO No. 225 of 2006: National Insurance Company Ltd. ….. Appellant Versus Avtar Singh and another …… Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. 1. FAO No. 479 of 2005: For the appellant: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 2. FAO No. 225 of 2006: For the appellant: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 at Nahan, dated 4.11.2005, vide which the petition filed by the appellant as petitioner for grant of compensation was allowed and he was awarded a sum of Rupees One Lac as compensation, against respondents No. 1 and 2. This judgment shall also dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd., for setting aside the award in favour of respondent No. 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant as petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, in which respondent No. 1 was impleaded as owner/driver and respondent No. 2 was impleaded as the insurer. The petitioner alleged that on 3.4.2002 he was going on his Motor Cycle No. HP-17-B-1065 alongwith his cousin and a Maruti Car No. HP-17-8180 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from opposite side and hit the petitioner who suffered injuries. The petitioner claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.2,81,630/-. The respondents denied the accident and respondent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company also took up the plea that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence. On conclusion of the case, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amounting to Rupees One Lac in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondents. The petitioner/appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed the appeal that the amount of compensation awarded was highly excessive. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3 The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that though the appellant had proved the medical bills amounting to Rs.91,752/-, but the learned Tribunal had wrongly deducted a sum of Rs.20,717/- to which he was entitled. I have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal under Issue No. 2 in this regard. It was observed that some of the bills do not appear to be genuine since there were over writings and cuttings on the date and these were not initialed and the author has not come up in the witness box to testify the said cuttings. Therefore, amount of these bills which was over Rs.20,000/- was deducted by the learned Tribunal from the total bill and I find no infirmity in the said findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. A plea was also raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted a sum of Rs.8,000/- on account of gratuitous services, though there was no evidence to this effect. A perusal of the findings given by the learned Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.8,000/- on account of gratuitous services. No reference was made to the testimony of the petitioner in this regard and therefore, these submissions may have been made. A perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Avtar Singh has stated that during his stay in the hospital his parents and wife stayed there and a sum of Rs.10,000-12,000/- was spent for their stay. Accordingly, it is not that the learned Tribunal had granted this bounty upon the petitioner without there being any evidence. Keeping in view the statement of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal had rightly awarded this amount, which findings do not call for an interference by this Court. 4 In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the petitioner/appellant as well as by the National Insurance Company Ltd., which are dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 17, 2009 Judge (BSS)