IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 558 OF 2005 Sidharth Pundir ... Claimant/ Appellant. Vs. Deepak Saini .. Opp. Party/ Respondents. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Dated: 10-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 1.10.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/IV F.T.C., Dehradun, in MACP No. 224 of 2003. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 22.12.2002 at about 9-15 P.M. claimant Siddharth along with his friend was returning to his home Prem Nagar in a Motorcycle after attending the birthday party and when they reached near Rajpur Road, suddenly Tata Mobile No. M.H.-02/B-0609 came there from Prem Nagar side in a high speed. The driver of the said vehicle was drunk and driving the said vehicle rashly and negligent in the middle of the road and dashed the Motorcycle, due to which both the Motorcycle riders fell down. The claimant sustained injury on his head, due to which he became unconscious. He was brought to Doon Hospital for first aid and finding his precarious condition, he was shifted to C.M.I. Haridwar Road, Dehradun. There also his condition could not improved and he was referred to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The injured was also admitted in Modi Hospital, New Delhi. According to the claimants he spent about Rs. 8,0,000/- and he is expected to spend more money on his treatment. Therefore, the claimant filed petition for compensation of Rs. Thrity Lacs. 3- The Opposite Party contested the claim by filing his written statement and denied the contents of the petition. He alleged that the claim is bad for non- joinder of owner, driver and insurer of the Motorcycle. He also denied the negligence of his part and alleged that the Motorcyclists were driving the said vehicle at a high speed and due to their fault the accident had occurred, therefore, the liability of compensation is not upon him. 4- On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed a number of documents pertaining to his treatment in support of his case. The opposite Party also examined himself as D.W.1 and Jitendra Singh Kohali as D.W.2. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, held that the accident had occurred due to the fault of opposite party/respondent and the motorcyclist had no fault in the said accident, therefore, the owner, driver and insurer of the Motorcycle were not necessary party to the claim petition and according awarded a sum of Rs. 10,82,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment, payable by Opposite Party/Respondent Deepak Joshi. 5- Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. I have heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and perused the record. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned judgment and award, I do not find any force in this appeal filed for enhancement of the compensation. 8- The sole question for determination in this appeal is that whether the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of claimant/appellant is adequate or it is insufficient?. To prove his case the claimant/injured has examined himself as P.W.1 and narrated the facts of the case. According to him after the accident him first aid. From there he was admitted in C.M.I, for his treatment and finding his condition precarious, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. Again he was admitted in C.M.I. Dehradun and again carried to Apollo Hospital New Delhi. His condition was not still stable and he had to be admitted in Modi Hospital, New Delhi. He has deposed that about 11,00,000/- rupees have been spent by him on his treatment and still he is undergoing treatment. Due to the injuries he has become disable permanently and his hope of getting some job has ended. The claimant also filed disability certificate paper No. 154-B showing disability of 60%. The claimant also filed medical prescriptions, bills, receipt etc amounting to about Rs. 9,28,000/-. The claimant at the time of accident was a student of 11th standard and his monthly income was shown to be Rs. 5,500/- but no evidence has been produced in support of his income. The Tribunal in the above situation has taken the notional income of Rs.15, 000/- per annum and as per his age of 18 ½ years, a multiplier of 16 has been adopted on the above notional income, and in this way the loss of earning has been assessed as Rs. 1,44,000/- (15,000 x 16 x 60/100). The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical agony suffered due to the injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,28,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,44,000/- towards loss of earning due to permanent disability and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and agony, the total of which comes to Rs. 10,82,000/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment. I find that adequate amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the injured/appellant and the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. 9- For the aforesaid discussion the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is confirmed. No order as to cost. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB