IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKNAND AT NAINIAL Appeal From Order No. 106 of 2008 Irshad S/o Shokat R/o Gissupura, P.S. Pathari District Haridwar …………Appellant Vs. 1. Habib Ahmad S/o Iddud Hasan R/o Village Dhanpura Gissupura P.S. Pathri District Haridwar 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Officer, Ranipur Mor Haridwar through its Regional Manager ……….Respondents Sri Narendra Bail, learned counsel for the appellant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed the appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2007 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C. P. No. No. 85 of 2006, Irshad Vs. Habib Ahmad & another whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which shall be paid to the claimant/appellant within a period of two months form the date of decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant- Irshad on 16.03.2006 at 05:35 a.m. was going form Rishikesh to Masoor in the vehicle No.UA08D/9772 as a driver and transporting the material of Habib Ahmad. In the way, the said vehicle met with an accident due to which he sustained serious injuries, therefore, he filed claim petition for Rs. 11,50,000/- as compensation. 3. The owner and the Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the claimant vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed, this claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the award of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Narendra Bail, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant has spent Rs. One lacs in his treatment and produced number of medical bills in this regard. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition did not consider this aspect and has paid a meager amount to the claimant. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has held that the claimant could not prove the bills submitted by him. The Manager of the hospital verified the bills submitted by the claimant who is not an authorized person for verifying the same. The bills submitted by the claimant pertain to different medical stores and belong to different persons. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record decided the claim petition. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. I am total agreement with findings recorded by the Tribunal. I do not find merit in the case at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 20.03.2008 ASWAL