IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 179 of 2005 Raj Pal @ Raja Ram … Appellant Versus Anand Prakash & others … Respondents Sri B.M. Pingal, Advocate for appellant Sri Prabhat Pande, Advocate for respondents no. 2 & 4 Dated: June 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 5.5.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C. Haridwar, District Haridwar in MAC No. 76 of 2002, Raj Pal @ Raja Ram vs. Anand Prakash and others as well as order dated 9.2.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV F.T.C. Haridwar, District Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2004, Raj Pal @ Raja Ram vs. Anand Prakash and others. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.3.2002 at about 1.30 p.m. claimant-Raj Pal was going through Tractor No. U.A. 08/9283 from Roorkee to his village Bahadarabad Jat. The said tractor was being driven by one Nazim @ Munfait carefully and one Ram Pal Singh was also sitting on the said Tractor. When they reached at Haridwar Roorkee main road near Maldi Ram Hotel, a Truck bearing Registration No. H.R.29A-4265 coming rashly from rear side, dashed the said vehicle from the side. In the said 2 accident Ram Pal Singh and claimant-Raj Pal sustained injuries on their person. The claimant-Raj Pal used to work as labourer in the said Tractor and used to get Rs.80/- per day. Besides this, the claimant also used to earn Rs.40/- per day by selling milk and thus the monthly income of claimant was Rs.3600/-. Due to the said accident the claimant has been suffering mental and physical agony and his source of income has been closed. The claimant on account of fracture is not able to do work of labour. The claimant also alleged that at the time of accident he was 40 years of age. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.246736/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 3-Dharm Singh-owner of Tractor No. U.A.08-9283 contested the case by filing written statement and admitted the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that at the time of accident said Tractor was insured with opposite party no. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance was valid at the time of accident. The driver of said tractor was not at fault, rather the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of truck. Therefore, the opposite party no. 4 is liable to pay compensation. The opposite parties no. 2 & 4-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement and pleaded that accident took place due to joint negligence of both the vehicles involved in the accident and claimant was not labourer over the tractor in question, therefore, he is not entitled to get compensation. It has also been pleaded that monthly income of claimant was not Rs.3600/- and 3 both the vehicles i.e. tractor and truck are being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. The opposite party no. 1-Anand Prakash- owner of Truck No. H.R.29A/4265 contested the case by filing the written statement and pleaded that on 13.3.2002 he was the registered owner of said Truck, which was being driven by its driver- Ram Bhawan Shukla carefully. As soon as the said truck reached near Maldi Ram Hotel, another vehicle, who is not party in this case was, coming to Roorkee from the side of Haridwar rashly and his vehicle slowed down his speed in order to give the side to another vehicle, then tractor coming from the rear side collided with his truck from rear side. The accident is the outcome of rash and negligence of driver of tractor who was not made party and therefore claim petition is bad for non-joinder of party. At the time of accident the said truck was insured with United Insurance Co. Ltd. and insurance was valid on the date of accident. The claimant has shown medical expenses on his treatment to the tune of Rs.46,436/-, which is excessive. No disability has been caused to the claimant due to the said accident. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation from answering opposite party. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.40,000/- in favour of claimant-Raj Pal @ Raja Ram, payable by opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., along with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till 4 the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 5.5.2004. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that during the pendency of claim petition in Claims Tribunal the appellant could not receive his permanent disability certificate because of the reasons, it is provided to the injured only after completion of treatment and by then the appellant was under treatment. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on 5.5.2004 with the observation that as and when the claimant receives his permanent disability certificate he may intimate the same to the Tribunal and then he will further be compensated for his permanent disability. The appellant could receive his permanent disability certificate on 27.7.2004 i.e. after passing the impugned judgment and award dated 5.5.2004. Thereafter, the appellant as per observation given by Tribunal in the impugned award moved an application before learned Tribunal with his permanent disability certificate (by which he has been held to be 60% permanent disabled) and requested the Tribunal to compensate him in view of 60% disability. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said application vide its order dated 9.2.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders dated 5.5.2004 and 9.2.2005, the appellant- claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for 5 respondents no. 2 & 4-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award dated 5.5.2004. The Tribunal held that claimant did not file any disability certificate and in this regard the Tribunal was informed at the time of hearing that claimant shall produce the disability certificate after completion of treatment, therefore, the claimant can move separate petition on the basis of expenses over future medical treatment and disability certificate. On the basis of said observation given by learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 5.5.2004, the claimant moved an application before the Tribunal along with permanent disability certificate (in which he has been held 60% disabled). Objection against the said application was also filed by opposite parties. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that neither a party can file more than one claim petition against the same accident nor Tribunal can allow or dismiss claim petition for award of any amount of compensation after passing the judgment passed in the same accident case. The Tribunal further observed that when once a Motor Accident Claim Petition has been decided by a Tribunal, then again award of compensation by the same Tribunal against the same cause of action is not justified. Hence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant vide its order dated 9.2.2005. I do not find any illegality in the finding 6 recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 9.2.2005 and does not require any interference by this Court. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgments and awards passed by Tribunal are hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP