IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 445 of 2004 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Divisional Office Nainital Road Haldwani District Nainital ... Appellant Vs 1. Prahalad Giri Goswami S/o Late Sri Chaman Giri Goswami 2. Smt. Prabha Devi W/o Sri Pahalad Giri Goswami 3. Km. Dolly S/o Sri Prahalad Giri Goswami Respondents No. 1 to 3 R/o Army Head Quarters A.P.S. Colony, New Delhi Permanent R/o Village and Patti Chamdungra Tehsil Gangolihat Presently R/o Village Kasni Post Vin, Tehsil & District Pithoragarh 4. Arora Transport Company A-1114 New Sabji Mandi Ajadpur, Delhi 5. Taranjeet Singh (Owner of Tata 407 No. DL3LB/3190) R/o B-89 Hari Nagar New Delhi ... Respondents With Appeal Against Order No. 283 of 2005 Prahlad Giri Goswami S/o Sri Chaman Giri Goswami R/o Village and Patti Chamdungra Tehsil Gangolihat Presently R/o Village Kasani Post Vin, Tehsil 7 District Pithoragarh ... Appellant Vs 1. Arora Transport Company A-1114 New Sabji Mandi Ajadpur, Delhi 2. Taranjeet Singh (Owner of Tata 407 No. DL3LB/3190) R/o B-89 Hari Nagar New Delhi 3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager Divisional Office Nainital Road Haldwani District Nainital ... Respondents Sri Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company Sri Amish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise out of same accident and the facts of both the cases are similar, therefore, both these appeals are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I am mentioning the facts of A.O. No. 445 of 2004. 2. Appeal No. 445 of 2004 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 20.08.2004 passed by M.A.C.T. /District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000, Pahalad Giri Goswami & others Vs Arora Transport Company & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition against the United India Insurance Company. 3. Appeal No. 283 of 2005 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.08.2004 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000, Pahalad Giri Goswami Vs Arora Transport Company & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the claimant/appellant along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition against the United India Insurance Company. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.1999 at about 06:30 a.m. Tata 407 – truck No. Dl1LB/3190 was coming from Delhi met with an accident, 6 km from Gajrola. In the said accident – son of Pahalad Giri – Rohit Giri (5 years) died on the spot and the appellant – Pahalad Giri sustained injuries. In this way, the appellants/claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation. 5. M/s Arora Transport Company as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing their written statement while the owner of the Truck – Taranjeet Singh did not filed any written statement in spite of sufficient service. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded as sum of Rs. 80,000/- in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000 and Rs. 10,000/- in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2004. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. /appellant filed this petition for setting aside the award passed in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000 and the appellant/Pahalad filed this appeal for enhancement of the award passed in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000. 8. Heard Sri Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, Sri Amish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and perused the record. 9. Perusal of the record shows that the paper No. 7C is the First Information Report, which reveals that the driver of the truck himself admitted this fact that at the time of the accident, he ws driving the truck in a very rash and negligent manner. It has further alleged that in the truck his wife, children and mother were sitting inside the truck and the accident occurred due to his own mistake in which his son – Rohit Giri died on the spot. So the point relating to the rash and negligence was decided by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted before the Court that the amount awarded by the tribunal is very excessive. The Tribunal has committed error while fixing the liability upon Insurance Company, as the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence. 11. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, as it is clear from paper No. 10C that the vehicle in question was insured between 19.04.1999 to 18.04.2000, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. Perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment, further reveals that the driver of the vehicle did not produce the copy/original driving licence. The Tribunal on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Swarn Singh & others reported in 2004 A.C.J. page 1, gave the recoverable right to the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle in question. As far as the calculation of amount is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the fact and circumstances of the case awarded the amount of compensation. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 5 years only and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 80,000/- in lump sum to the claimants. 12. In view of the above discussion, appeal No. 445 of 2004 is dismissed. 13. In appeal No. 283 of 2005, Sri Amish Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed error while awarding the amount of compensation under the head of medical treatment. He has further submitted that the claimant has incurred about Rs. 30,000/- in his medical treatment. 14. Having considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the entire documents available before me, I come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical treatment. Perusal of the record reveals that the treatment of the appellant was done in Military Hospital, free of cost and with regard to the medicines, he has not produced any bill pertaining to his treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while awarding the amount of compensation to the claimant/appellant. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer with any illegality. I do not find any ground to interfere in the amount of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 15. Accordingly, appeal No. 283 of 2005 is also dismissed. 16. The statutory amount filed by the appellant/Insurance Company in Appeal No. 445 of 2005 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 17. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in Appeal No. 283 of 2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.03.2008 ASWAL