IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 371 of 2005 State of Uttaranchal through Collector, Udham Singh Nagar & another … Appellants Vs Devendra Kumar S/o Bali Ram & another … Respondents Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellants Sri Siddhartha Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 26.07.2003 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, III, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C. Case No. 95 of 2000 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellants along with interest @ 8% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.11.1999 at about 09:00 p.m., injured – Davendra Kumar was going to his school. When he was standing near the local roadways bus stand at the side of the road along with his friends, suddenly a P.A.C. Van bearing registration No. UGP/4540, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit Sri Davendra Kumar/claimant due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was immediately rush to Om Nursing Hospital, Rudrapur, where he was medically examined by the doctor. According to the claim petition, he has spent Rs. 45,000/- in his treatment including doctor fees, medicines, transportation etc. His brother Surendra Kumar lodged the complaint of the accident at police station Rudrapur. At the time of the accident, Devendra Kumar was 15 years of age and doing studies. The injured/claimant filed claim petition for 2 compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Tribunal concerned. 3. Commandant/appellant No. 2 contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the said accident took place due to negligence of the injured himself was collided with some another vehicle. It has further alleged that he was wrongly impleaded as party and the claimant did not made party to the vehicle, which caused the accident. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 4. The appellant – State Government also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement stating therein that the contents of claim petition were not acceptable due to lack of knowledge. It has submitted that the vehicle No. UPG/4540 pertains to 31 Battalian, P.A.C., Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar but the claimant did not implead the driver of the vehicle in question, as party. It has further pleaded that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. The said accident took place by some other vehicle. It has further pleaded that the claim petition against the State liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material led by the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum against the appellants vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2003. 3 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants have preferred this petition before this Court. 7. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Sri Siddhartha Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. In order to support his case, the injured – Davendra Kumar filed Medical Certificate of Om Hospital. As a witness the Tribunal examined Davendra Kumar (P.W.1), Sri Surendra Kumar (P.W.2) and Sri Narendra Bhakuni (P.W.3). The opposite parties examined Srafudeen as D.W.1 who was the driver of the vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal did not consider this point that the vehicle of the appellant bearing No. UGP/4540 was not involved in the accident and some other vehicle was involved. It has further pleaded that the Tribunal decided the issue No. 1, on the basis of presumption, conjectures and surmises. 10. Perusal of the record shows that the report of the accident was lodged by Surendra Kumar at police station Rudrapur. It has further come in the statement of Surendra Kumar, which is paper No. 29kha that due to mistake the number of the vehicle was wrongly written as UGT/4540 while the number is UGP/4540. The Tribunal has rightly assessed that it does not create any problem, as the number of the vehicle has rightly been mentioned in the First Information Report. The evidence of Narendra Bhakuni (P.W.3) is very important in this case. He was the eyewitness of the accident. At the time of the accident he was standing along with the 4 injured. He has stated in his statement that on the date of accident, he was standing on the roadside along with his friends. Suddenly, vehicle No. UGP/4540, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit the injured – Davendra Kumar. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that on 18.11.1999 the said accident took place by vehicle No. UGP/4540 due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. 11. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The claimant/injured filed medicine bills pertaining to his treatment, in total Rs. 1,800/-. The claimant neither produced any document which may show that he was admitted in the hospital nor filed any discharge slip of the Hospital. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical treatment and further Rs. 5,000/- towards physical and mental agony. The claimant did not adduce any evidence, which might have shown that due to these injuries he has suffered loss of his studies. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability upon both the appellants as the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Commandant, 31 Battalian, P.A.C., Trurapur is the venture of State Government. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of the claimant. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL