IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 20 of 2006 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Govind Singh Rawat … Respondent Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent Judgment :Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 10.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chamoli in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 25 of 2005, Govind Singh Rawat Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant – Govind Singh Rawat is the owner of the vehicle No. UP07H/0729. On 19.09.2004, at about 09:00 p.m., when he was going from Garisain to Karanpuryag to carry passengers, suddenly, the lock of the starring failed and the vehicle met with an accident, in which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, he became permanent disabled for his whole life. He had been admitted in the Hospital, Karanprayag and thereafter, Himalyan Institute, Joligrant, Dehradun and Combined Medical Institute, Dehradun. On the above basis, the claimant filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 9,25,500/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter notice was issued to the to the opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. On the receipt of the notice, insurer of the vehicle i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition on the ground that 2 the vehicle was being plied in violation of policy. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,58,069/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment vide judgment and award dated 10.11.2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 1. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has pressed this appeal only on one point. He has submitted that the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the driver/deceased himself and therefore, no compensation could 3 have been awarded in the instant case. He has further submitted that the deceased was the owner/driver of the vehicle in question and he does not come in the category of third party, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside. 9. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent has made a rival contention and has submitted that the court below after perusing the entire material available on record rightly awarded the amount of compensation against the appellant/Insurance Company. He has invited my attention towards paper No. 39C/1, which is copy of certificate of insurance. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have perused the paper No. 39C/2, which is a certificate of Insurance, which reveals that the owner had made the payment of Rs. 100/- for himself/driver. Therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force. The claimant in support of his case has produced the photocopy of driving licence, permit, registration certificate etc. and after carefully scrutinizing the above documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation against the appellant/Insurance Company. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 11. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal discussed this point while deciding issue No. 3. The Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation considered the medical bills, which comes to Rs. 76,069/-, as produced by the claimant. The Tribunal considering paper No. 4 29C and 29C/4, which are transportation charges awarded for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, which appears to be perfectly justified. The claimant has produced paper No. 28C which is a disability certificate, it reveals that the claimant sustained 41% disablement. According to the claim petition, the claimant/injured was a farmer and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month by this occupation and he was 56 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal considering the age of the claimant as well as income awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in one stroke. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards injuries sustained by him. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,58,069/- (76069 + 12000 + 50000 + 15000 + 5000). The interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation do not require any interference. 12. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Consequently, cross objection No. 2019 of 2006 is dismissed. 15. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.06.2009 ASWAL