IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 67 of 2004 Subhash Chandra .. Appellant. Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. .. Respondent. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: 01-07-2008 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 24-11-2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/ IV F.T.C., Dehradun, in MAC Case No. 88 of 1998. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 14-9-87 at about 1.30 P.M. the claimant Subhash Chandra was travelling in Bus No. UHC 788. The Bus met with accident near Chakwali bridge, Village Pachakera, Amroha. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of bus driver. The injured sustained injury on his left hand fingers and one of his finger was amputated. According to the claimant, he was a skilled workman and after the amputation of his finger he is not able to do the work. Therefore, he preferred petition for compensation. 3- U.P.S.R.T.C. filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. The opposite party denied the allegation that the driver was driving the bus with negligence. The disability of the injured was also denied. It also alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed. 2 4- The Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues. Thereafter, the claimant adduced evidence in support of his case. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing parties and considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the injured sustained simple injury and the finger was amputated due to the own fault of the injured, therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the simple injuries sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal also directed to deposit the compensation within a period of three months, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till the actual date of payment shall be payable. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7- The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the index finger of left hand of the claimant was amputated and the middle and ring fingers of that hand have become deformed, as a result of which he is unable to perform his job. He also contended that the appellant has spent huge amount on his treatment, but the Tribunal has ignored all these aspects and awarded a very meager amount as compensation. He therefore, argued that the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 8- On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the above submissions and urged that the injured had sustained simple injuries on his hand. He was treated in 3 Government Hospital and no expenditure whatsoever was incurred by him. He further alleged that the amputation of the finger was due to his own fault, hence the tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. 9- From perusal of record it reveals that the injured was admitted in District Hospital Moradabad on 14-9-87 and he was discharged from there on 17-9-1987. The assertion of the claimant is that he was referred to Doon Hospital, Dehradun, but it appears that he did not admit himself in the Doon Hospital, on 17-9-1987 or the next day. Exhibit-9, slip issued by Radiologist, Doon Hospital, Dehradun shows that x-ray of hand of the injured was done on 20-5-88 and Exhibit-10 shows that on 19-9-2000 he was present with amputated finger and the Doctor has advised him for x-ray. No report of amputation was filed which may show that actually his finger was amputated and what expense he incurred for this. Ext-5 is the photo of hand of the injured and from this it does not transpire that the finger was amputated, as there is bend on the top of the finger and it seems that the pose of the finger has been taken in bending position. In his statement, in cross-examination, the injured has deposed that on 17-9-87 he was referred to Doon Hospital, because he is resident of Dehradun. He has further deposed that the papers pertaining to his admission in Doon Hospital have been taken away by the Department and he was not issued any receipt. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claimant did not admit him in the Doon Hospital and did not receive treatment from there and due to his own negligence there was infection in his finger injury and that part of the finger had to cut by the doctor. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that there is no 4 certificate of amputation of finger on record, therefore, the injured was held entitled to compensation for simple injuries only. The Tribunal also found that if the injured would have treated him promptly, his finger should not have been amputated and for the own negligence, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the simple injuries only sustained by him in the accident. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant/injured was treated in Government Hospitals, firstly at Moradabad and thereafter he was x-rayed at Doon Hospital, Dehradun. He did not file any cash memo or bill pertaining to purchase of any medicine. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the simple injuries sustained by the injured/claimant. 10- For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24-11-2003 stands confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB