IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 537 of 2007 State of U.P. & 2 others … Appellants Vs Master Pappu … Respondent Sri P.C. Bisht, learned standing counsel for the State/appellants Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 02.06.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C. No. 15 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- against the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.1989 at about 04:00 p.m., the claimant/injured was standing near Pawan Kirana Store, Kotdwar, suddenly, a jeep No. UGI/85 of the opposite parties/appellants, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant/respondent, due to accident, the leg of the claimants have become useless and he is not in a position to move. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their written statement alleging therein that the jeep was coming in a normal speed and cautiously. The said accident took place due to fault of the claimant/injured himself. The amount of compensation is on the higher side 2 and the claimant/injured is not entitled for any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the claimant received injuries in the alleged accident? 2. Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. UGP/85 at the time of accident? 3. Whether the State is necessary party? If so, its effect? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled and from which of the opposite parties? 5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,15,500/- which shall be payable within two months failing which the same shall be payable @ 15% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment vide judgment and award daed 02.06.1997. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred this appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which has been transferred to this Court after creation of separate State. 3 7. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned standing counsel for the State/appellants, Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal relied upon the statement of Sri Chunni Lal, who is the father of the injured and decided the issue against the appellants. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the cross-examination the witness in his finding. In fact, the vehicle in question was not being driven rashly and negligently, but was going at its usual and normal speed and the accident took place due to fault of the injured/respondent, who while suddenly crossing the road, dashed with the vehicle and got injured. 9. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and award as well as perusal of the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly imposed the negligence on the part of the appellants. In order to support his case the claimant’s father Sri Chunni Lal (P.W.1) has been examined. He has stated that the accident took place in his presence. He has stated that on the date of accident, the said vehicle was coming from Chauk Choraha to Nazimabad in a very rash and negligent manner. At the time of the accident, some ladies as well as children were also there. The Tribunal on the basis of the statement of the P.W.1, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question due to which, claimant/injured sustained injuries. 4 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal committed error while awarding Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses, which was incurred during the treatment of the injured. The said amount was given by the Tribunal without any cogent and reliable evidence on record. 11. As per the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount under the head of medical expenses. The disability certificate available on record reveals that the claimant/injured remained under treatment for a very long period and the injures sustained by him are grievous in nature, therefore, presumption may be drawn that the claimant should have spent Rs. 35,000/- on his medical treatment as has been alleged by him. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for Rs. 35,000/- towards appears to be justified in nature. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,800/- towards transportation charges. The Tribunal awarded this amount on the basis of the paper No. 32C, which is a bill for Rs. 4,800/- of M/s Transport and Forwarding Agency. The Tribunal has rightly granted this amount under the transportation charges, which do not require any interference. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure incurred upon the injured and Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses. In this way, the total comes to Rs. 1,15,500/- as compensation. 5 The Tribunal also directed the appellants to deposit the compensation within two months, failing which interest @ 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment to the injured. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal. 12. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.1997 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 02.06.2008 ASWAL