IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A. O. No. 1029 of 2001 (Old no. F.A.F.O. No. 426 of 1997) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Haridwar, through its Attorney …Opp. Party/ Appellant. Vs. 1. Rajesh Singh S/o Bir Singh R/o Village Karaunti, Pargana Bhagwanpur Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Elias S/o Sabbir Ahmed R/o Pubana Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, presently R/o Mohalla Khan Alampura District Saharanpur. 3. Sayed Qmar Hussain S/o Sayed Mumtaz R/o Mazra, District Saharanpur …Respondents. Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondent / claimant. Dated 28-02-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company, against the judgment and award dated 19-3 1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Roorkee, in M.A.C. Case No. 57/1996, whereby the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,63,356-80P. along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of petition against the Opposite Party United India Insurance Company. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 12.11.1995 at about 12:30 P.M. Rajesh Singh claimant along with his sister Reshma Devi was travelling in Matador U.R.F. 9752 and they were going to their village from Chauli Bus Stand. When the vehicle Matador reached near Khubbanpur Gurukul College, due to the rash and negligence of its driver it collided with a standing jeep due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his both the legs. Later on his left leg was imputed from the knee and he has become disabled. The claimant has filed the petition for award of compensation. 3- The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the Matador but the claimant sustained injuries due to his own fault. It was also alleged that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance and the driver was having valid driving license. The vehicle was also having valid documents of registration, permit etc. 4- The O.P. United India Insurance Company also filed its W.S. and took the plea that at the time of accident the driver had no valid driving license. The vehicle was also not having valid fitness, registration and permit, hence the insurer cannot be fastened the liability of compensation. 5- On the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1- Whether on 12-11-1995 at about 12.30 P.M. near Khabbanpur Gurukul College, Matador U.R.F. 9752 met with accident due to rash and negligence of its driver and claimant Rajesh Singh sustained injuries ? 2- Whether at the time of accident of the vehicle URF 9752 its driver O.P. No. 2 had no valid driving license? 3- Whether at the time of accident the vehicle URF 9752 was not having valid registration and fitness? 4- Whether the claimant is entitled to get any relief? 6- The Tribunal after considering the material on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the petition for a compensation of Rs. 1,63,356- 80P along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment against the United Insurance Company. 7- Feeling aggrieved the United India Insurance Company has filed this appeal before this Court. 8- The claimant/respondent No. 1 also filed cross objection in the appeal against the impugned award for enhancement of the compensation. 9- Heard Sri K. K. Shah, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company and Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 10- Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has raised the sole contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving license at the time of the accident, and therefore, the Insurance Company should not have been held liable to pay any compensation. 11- So far as the above submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has framed issue No. 2 on the point of driving license. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that photo copy of driving license of O.P. No. 2 Sayed Qmar was brought on record and it was issued on 31- 8-87. Later on it was renewed from 27-11-95 to 26-11- 1988. The Tribunal held that the insurer has not filed any document in support of its allegation. The Tribunal also held that after expiry of renewal of the license, it has been got renewed and the insurer has not discharged its burden to prove the fact by adducing evidence. The insurer has also not made efforts to bring on record as to whether the O.P. No. 2, the driver of the ill-fated vehicle, was in any way disqualified for driving the vehicle or not at the time of alleged accident. I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was quite justified in holding that the driver, O.P. No.2, Qmar Hussain was possessing valid driving license at the time of accident in question. I do not find any force in the submission raised on behalf of the appellant. 12- so far as the cross objection filed on behalf of the claimant/respondent No. 1 for enhancement of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded the total amount of expenses of the medical treatment incurred by the injured/claimant and therefore, the total amount of expenses incurred on his medical treatment be also awarded to him. 13- Perusal of impugned award reveals that the claimant has claimed Rs. 1,02,341-34 towards medical expenses out of which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 1,13,356-80P. towards imputation of the leg, Rs. 5000/- were awarded towards special diet, Rs. 20,000/- were awarded towards pain suffering and Rs. 10,000/- were awarded towards future suffering and in this way total sum of Rs. 1,63,356-80P along with 12% interest per annum was awarded. I find that the Tribunal has thus awarded a reasonable amount towards the medical treatment. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require interference by this Court. 14- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The cross objection preferred by the claimant/respondent No. 1 also lack merit and the same is also liable to be rejected. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The cross objection is also dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 19-3-1997 is hereby confirmed. 16- The amount of compensation deposited in the High Court by the Insurance Company be remitted to be Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB