IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 18 of 2008 Harbansh Singh … Appellant Vs Bhagwan Dass & another … Respondents Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 28.07.2007 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 131 of 2004, Harbansh Singh Vs Bhagwan Dass & others. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.03.2004, the injured – Harbansh Singh was coming from Puranpur to his Village Majhola Bidora along with Mahak Singh on the motorcycle. At about 12:30 p.m., when they reached near Melaghat Road, Khatima, suddenly, a jeep bearing registration No. UPD/9389 coming from Khatima side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle due to this impact, he sustained serious injuries. According to the claim petition, the right leg of the claimant was fractured. He was admitted in the C.H.C. Khatima and referred to Krishna Hospital for better treatment. It has also pleaded that he had spent around Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. Hence, he filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written 2 statements before the Tribunal denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case. 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. 11,896/- along with interest @ 7% per annum vide judgment and award dated 28.07.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved, by the said judgment and award dated 28.07.2007, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement before the Court. 7. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. UPD/9389 is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. As the appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the only point to be discussed in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be held to be justified or not. 3 10. So far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, from the evidence available on record, it reveals that according to the claim petition the injured had spent Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the claimant/injured had produced receipt of medical expenses before the court below for a sum of Rs. 11,896/-, therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of the medical receipt awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.06.2008 ASWAL