IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 509 of 2007 Kishore Ram … Appellant Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, 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 31.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, in Motor Accident Case No. 44 of 2006, Kishore Ram Vs Kashav Dutt Bhatt & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2006, the claimant was travelling in Jeep No. UA03/3297 from Bhigrada to Lohaghat, when the said jeep reached near Durganagar, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, it met with an accident. In this accident, the claimant/appellant sustained serious injures on his hand and legs. He was admitted in the Hospital at Lohaghat where he remained admitted upto 09.06.2006. On 09.06.2006, he was referred to Sobhan Singh Jeena Hospital, Haldwani where the doctors operated his leg. According to the claimant, he had spent huge amount on his medical treatment, hence, he preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written 2 statements before the Tribunal. 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 case. 4. 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. 41,610/- along with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 31.05.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved, by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant has come up in appeal for enhancement before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 7. 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 vehicle No. UA03/3297 is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court only on the point of quantum. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by reducing the medical expenses to Rs. 35,610/- whereas the claimant had spent a sum of Rs. 55,000/- on his medical treatment. Therefore, on this ground the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 3 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company has made the rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record rightly awarded the amount of compensation. At this stage, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 10. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record available before me. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 4. From the perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 – Shyam Ram who has stated in his statement that he had spent Rs. 55,000/- on the medical treatment of his son. In order to support his version he has produced paper No. 9C1/1 to 9C1/5, 10C/1 to 10C1/6, 10C1/7, 12C1/1 and 12C1/5 to 12C1/7 before the court below and the total amount of above bills comes to Rs. 35,610/-. The Tribunal on the basis of this fact awarded the same amount under the medical expenses. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental pain and agony. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the receipts pertaining to the transportation produced by the claimants/injured, which are available on record as paper No. 12C1/5 to 12C1/7 is not established by the claimant, therefore, the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under this head. Thus, the Tribunal 4 awarded a sum of Rs. 41,610/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. I am in total agreement with find findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. The amount of compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal appears to be perfectly justified. 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.) 12.06.2009 ASWAL