IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 243 of 2005 Smt. Suman Vashisth … Appellant Vs The New India Assurance Company & another … Respondents Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 02.04.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./A.D.J./F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2003 at about 06:00 a.m. the injured/claimant – Smt. Suman Bisht along with other relatives were going to Deli from Haldwani by Santro Car No. UA04/5070. When they reached near Civil Line Rampur suddenly a truck No. UP13D/7341 came from the opposite side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed the santro car, due to which all the passengers sustained grievous injuries and two persons died. In this accident, the claimant/injured sustained serious injuries, her both legs and right hand were badly crushed and several operation were done by the doctors of Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. According to the claimant, the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. In this 2 accident, the injured spent about rupees three lacs on his medical treatment. According to the claimant, the injured was earning lady and is a partner in a firm. Therefore, she filed the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that the petition is bad, as the owner and insurer of santro car have not been party I the claim petition. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. It has further alleged that the said accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the santro car. It has also pleaded that the insurer has to prove that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy along with the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence of the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. Sri Rafiul Rehman – owner of the truck No. UP13D/7341 also contested the claim petition alleging therein that the said accident had not took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck. It has further alleged that the truck in question was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the driver of the truck was having the valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the present petition against him liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. Both the parties, led the evidence in support of their cases. After hearing learned counsel for the 3 parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/- in favou of the claimant/injured vide judgment and award dated 02.04.2005. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 8. While deciding the issue No. 1 relating to the accident, the Tribunal has recorded the statement of P.W.2 – Suman Bisht who has stated that on 12.07.2003 she was traveling in santro car No. UA04/5070 from Haldwani to Delhi. At about 06:00 a.m., when they reached near Police Post Hawalia, Rampur, suddenly, truck No. UP13D/7341 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, coming on the side of the car, hit the said car due to which she sustained serious injuries in this accident. She has further stated that she was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Rampur and thereafter, she was referred to Delhi for better treatment. Raghunandan Vashisth (P.W.1) corroborated the statement of P.W.2. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of the witnesses as well as First Information Report and medical bills pertaining to the treatment, it cannot be said that the accident has not taken place and the claimant/injured sustained serious injuries in this accident. 4 9. While deciding the issue No. 2 – whether the driver of truck No. UP13D/7341 was having the valid driving licence and the truck was plying with complete documents. It is clear from the perusal of paper No. 14C/2 which cover note of the insurance policy which shows that the truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company at the time of accident. Perusal of paper No. 14C/3 which shows that the driver of the truck was also having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 10. While deciding the issue No. 3 – with regard to the compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of the bills pertaining to the treatment of the injured/claimant, taken into account the total amount which is Rs. 2,21,000/- and the Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards treatment/operation for future expenses and further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards injuries. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,16,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the documents pertaining to the medical treatment as well as injuries sustained by the claimant/injured. He has submitted before the Court that the appellant was operated four times. At first time the steel rod were inserted in both the legs and both the hands. Later on after a gap of one year the steel rod was again removed from the legs. Both the operations were very painful and the Tribunal while awarding the amount under the head of pain and suffering awarded only Rs. 5,000/- cannot be said to be justified. 5 12. As far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of compensation in lieu of the severe injuries sustained by the claimant/injured amounting to Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be quite meager. The record reveals that the claimants has invested huge amount on the medical treatment. She has further been awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for the expenses for the future medical treatment. The injuries sustained by the claimants are grievous in nature, therefore, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering on account of the grievous injuries appears to be absolutely on the lower side. 13. To my mind, keeping in view the injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount for pain and suffering on account of grievous injuries should be Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-. 14. Further the conditional interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, which does not appear to be justified and proper. 15. I am of the view that the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,41,000/- (221000 + 90000 + 30000) instead of Rs. 3,16,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum instead of conditional interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2005 is modified upto the extent that the claimant is 6 entitled to get Rs. 3,41,000/- instead of Rs. 3,16,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 16.06.2008 ASWAL