IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 378 OF 2006 Pappu alias Pankaj S/o Chotte Lal Yadav R/o Tanakpur Road, Haldwani, District Nainital ... Claimant/Appellant. Vs. 1- Smt. Beena Devi W/o Radhakrishna Gupta R/o Anandpur, Talli Bamori Haldwani, District Nainital. 2- The New India Assurance Company Through Divisional Manager, Haldwani District Naianital ... O.Ps./Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the Insurance Company. Dated: 13-03-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-3-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ II F.T.C., Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 11 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that, on 27-11-2004 the claimant was employed as cleaner in Truck No. U.P. 26-0244, and he was going from Haldwani to Lalkuan in the aforesaid truck at about 2 A.M. in the night. When the truck reached near Naveen Mandi, a cow came in front of the truck. The driver tried to save the cow and in that effort accident took place. The claimant sustained grievous injuries. His right leg was fractured. He was admitted in Sobhan Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani for 2 treatment. He has to undergo operation of his right leg and iron rod was implanted in his leg. The claimant also sustained injuries on his eye and face. He filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party/owner of the Truck filed written statement and alleged that the Truck was insured with New India Assurance Company and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. It has also been alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been demanded. 4- The Opposite Party/New India Assurance Company also contested the petition by filing its written statement denying the allegation made in the petition. It has alleged that the burden of proof of the documents filed in the petition is on the claimant. 5- The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, has framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter, claimant filed oral as well as documentary evidence. The Opposite Parties did not adduce any evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment payable by New India Assurance Company. 6- Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 8- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant was operated for his leg and iron rod was implanted in his leg. Due to fracture of his leg, he claimant has to suffer in future also, but the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing towards future suffering. Learned counsel argued that some amount should be awarded towards under this head. 9- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, has opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded a reasonable amount towards medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of profession and no interference is needed in the award. 10- I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained by the claimant and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of profession. The above amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of profession appear to be quite reasonable and the finding of the Tribunal on this score is quite justified. 11- However, it appears from the impugned award that the Tribunal has not considered the future suffering of the injured/claimant. It is evident from the documents on record that the claimant is still undergoing treatment, iron rod has been implanted in his right leg. therefore, this fact cannot be ignored that the claimant is still investing some money towards his 4 treatment. Keeping in view the above fact, a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- should also be awarded to the claimant under the head of future suffering. Therefore, the total compensation to be awarded to the claimants comes Rs. 20,000/- (As awarded by the Tribunal) plus Rs. 20,000/- ( now awarded towards future suffering) = Rs. 40,000/-, along with the interest as indicated in the award. 12.- For the reason recorded above the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 25-3-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimant shall get compensation of Rs. 40,000/- from respondent/New India Assurance Company, instead of Rs. 20,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, along with the interest indicated in the award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB