IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 357 of 2006 Mohd. Akram Khan .. Appellant. Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another .. Respondents. Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Dated: 30-4-2008 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 9-2-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani, in MACT Case No. 18 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 26-12-2003, the claimant Mohd. Akram was going to his home from Gola gate and when he reached near Haldwani Dharam- Kanta at about 9.00 P.M., Motor Cycle bearing registration No. U.A. 04-A-3761 came there in a rash and negligent manner and hit him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant filed petition for award of compensation of Rs. Seven Lacs. 3- Opposite Party No.1, owner of the Motor Cycle filed his written statement and alleged that the accident had occurred due to own fault of the injured/claimant. He also alleged that the offending Motor Cycle is insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is on the shoulder of the insurer. 2 4- The Opposite Party No.2, National Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that the driver had no valid driving license. The injured had no income. He received treatment in Government Hospital in which he had to bear a nominal amount on his treatment. 5- The learned Tribunal, on the pleading of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. The claimant in support of his claim adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal after considering the material on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation against the National Insurance Company and directed to pay the amount of compensation within a period of one month, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6- Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the injured has become permanent disabled due to the fracture of shaft femur and fracture of pelvic bone and he is not capable to perform his normal duty and has lost his earning capacity and loss for one year, but the Tribunal has ignored all these factors and awarded a meager amount of compensation. Learned counsel has urged that the compensation should be enhanced. 3 9- From perusal of record, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant. The claimant has filed medical report, bills and discharge slip before the Tribunal, according to which, he spent an amount of Rs. 22,000/- on his medical treatment. The Tribunal has awarded this sum of Rs. 22,000/- to the claimant under the head of expenses on medical treatment. Besides this, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards the pain and suffering due to the grievous injuries sustained by the injured. The claimant remained admitted in the Hospital during the period of 26.12.2003 to 4.1.2004. Iron rod was inserted in his leg therefore, the tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the operation to be conducted in future for removing the said iron rod. The claimant has not filed on record the disability certificate, which may indicate that the injured had become permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 22,000/- towards expenses incurred on his medical treatment; Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards future expenses for the operation. Hence the total sum of Rs. 32,000/- can not be said on lesser side. I do not find this a case for enhancement and the finding of the Tribunal on the point of calculation of quantum of compensation does not require interference. 10- The Tribunal has awarded a conditional interest @ 9% per annum. In my opinion the interest should be awarded from the date of filing petition till the date of actual payment. 11- Therefore, the appeal is liable to be modified so far as the interest part is concerned. 4 12- Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 9-2-2005 is modified upto the extent that the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs. 32,000/- from the National Insurance Company along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest @ 9% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5