IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No.:160 /2004 Decided on: 15.7.2008 Sadeek Mohmad and another. …Appellants. Versus Waryam Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no. For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) This FAO has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una in MAC Petition No.32/1998. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this FAO are that the respondent-injured filed a claim petition under section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation on account of injuries received by him on 10.1.1998 at about 2.30 P.M. while travelling in a tractor trolley No.HIU-1673. The appellants resisted the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the award on 2nd 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 September, 2003 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation to the respondent-claimant. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate has strenuously argued that award dated 2.9.2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the tractor No. HIU-1673 was not involved in the accident. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has supported the award dated 2.9.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The accident has taken place on 10.1.1998 at about 2.30 P.M. The tractor was being driven by appellant No.1. The claimant had received multiple injuries. He was removed to District Hospital and after medical check up, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The Medical Board has assessed 100% disability taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant. The claimant has appeared as PW-2. He has categorically deposed that the driver i.e. appellant No.1 has given lift to him on the tractor and when the tractor was ascending, he drove the tractor at a high speed as a result of which the tractor turned turtle. He has further deposed that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver. He has given the description of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He has denied the suggestion that he has stained the injury while removing the wheat chaff from the kup. He has retired as a JBT teacher. He was also undertaking the tuition work. The version of the claimant has been duly supported by the doctor PW-1, who has medically examined him. The doctor has issued the MLC Ex.P-1 and the disability certificate is Ex.P-2 whereby the disability of the claimant has been assessed at 100%. 3 Mr. Rahul Mahajan has argued that the matter was never reported to the police. It is settled law that registration of FIR is not a sine qua non for getting the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is sufficient evidence on record as discussed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the tractor in question was involved in the accident driven by appellant No.1. The claimant has suffered paraplegia and the lower part of the body has become motionless and defunct. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the medical expenses, pain and suffering and expenses for attendant correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation. The amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is in accordance with law. In view of these observations, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 15, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*