IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 237 OF 2004. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Dehradun .. Appellant. Versus Smt. Somi Devi W/o Sunder Singh R/o Village Dudhli Post Doiwala District Dehradun .. Respondent. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 19-3-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles, Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20-4-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/V F.T.C. Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 8 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 6.5.2005, at about 3.30 DP.M. when the claimant Smt. Somi Devi was travelling in Bus No. U.P. 06- 1656 from Dudhali, Doiwala, the Bus due to rash and negligence of its driver collided with a tree near Mani Mai Temple, and the claimant sustained injuries on her both legs and other parts of her body. The claimant received medical treatment at Sharda Nursing Home, Dehradun, Doon Hospital and P.G.I. Chandigarh and she spent about one lac on her treatment. The claimant alleged that due to the injuries she suffered a loss of about Rs. Two lacs towards her income, Rs. One Lac will be spent by her in future and she also claimed Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering. 3- The Bus owner and its driver filed joint written statement before the Tribunal and alleged that the accident did not happen due to rash and negligence of the Bus driver but when the said Bus reached near Lacchiwala Railway Crossing, a Motorcycle came there from opposite direction in a high speed and in order to save the Motorcyclist, the Bus driver had to apply emergency brake, but due to jam of the brake the Bus collided with a tree and accident happened. 4- On the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their case. 5- The learned Tribunal after having gone through the material and on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the petition for compensation of 1,79,500/- against the Opposite Party/appellant to be payable within three months failing which the claimant was also awarded interest @ 6% per annum. 6- Feeling aggrieved the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 7- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount of compensation. It has also been contended that the accident had occurred due to mechanical defect in the vehicle, as the brake of the Bus got jammed at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 9- On the other hand learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has supported the impugned award and alleged that the Tribunal has passed the award after perusing the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced before it and the same does not require interference. 10- After having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I do not find any force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11- The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the witnesses Somi Devi P.W.1, and eyewitness Rakesh Kumar P.W.2, have deposed that the driver of the offending bus was driving the bus at a very high speed and at the place of accident he lost control over it and met with an accident. The allegation of the bus owner and the driver is that at the time of accident brake of the bus was jammed and the accident happened. If it was so, they could have filed the technical inspection report of the surveyor of the Corporation. Therefore, in view of the evidence adduced in the case and the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was quite justified in holding the negligence on the part of the Bus driver. 12- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. One Lac towards the medical expenses incurred by the claimant. The claimant got comminuted fractures on shaft tibia and fibula of left leg and right ankle and right leg. Occipital bone of skull also got fracture. X-ray reports, a large number of medicine bills and cash memos have been filed from the side of the claimant. The claimant got her treatment in various Hospitals, therefore, the amount awarded under this head is quite reasonable. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. The claimant in her statement on oath has deposed that after accident she was taken to Sharda Nursing Home and from there she was admitted in Doon Hospital. The Doctors looking her serious condition referred her to P.G.I. Chandigarh where she got treatment for about a month and in future also she will have to spend money on her treatment. In the above circumstances I find the Tribunal has rightly awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the claimant. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 500/- from this amount as the said amount was already paid by Opposite Party/appellant to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% per annum in default of payment of award money within three months, which in my view is not to be disturbed. 13- For the foregoing reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is affirmed. 15- The amount of compensation deposited before the High Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB