IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No.139/2004 and Cross-objection No.251/2004 Judgment reserved on: 15.7.2008 Decided on.17.7.2008 Pawan Kumar and another. …Appellants/Non-objector. Versus Vikas Jaswal …Respondent/Objector. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the appellants / : Mr. N. K.Thakur, Advocate. Non-objector. For the respondent/ : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Objector. Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, First Appeal against Order (MVA) No. 139/2004 and Cross Objection No. 251/2004 were taken up together for hearing and are being decided by a common judgment. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the First Appeal against Order (MVA) and Cross Objection are that respondent Vikas Jaswal filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una for grant of compensation for the injuries received by him in the accident which took place on 6.6.2000. He was removed to private practitioner and Dr. Anil Kumar gave first-aid to him and thereafter Sh. Vikas Jaswal was treated at Bharanj Nursing Home, Hoshiarpur where he remained admitted with effect from 6.6.2000 to 10.6.2000. A nail was also inserted in his leg. The appellants filed reply to the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence produced on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 22,800/- as compensation to the respondent with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that the award dated 6.2.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has submitted that his client was entitled to a sum of Rs. three lakhs as compensation. He also submitted that his client was unable to earn at least for a period of 6-8 months. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. The accident took place on 6.6.2000 at about 10.30 P.M. near Radhey Shyam Mandir, Gagret. The respondent-objector was treated at Bharanj Nursing Home, Hoshiarpur. He remained in the Nursing Home with effect from 6.6.2000 to 10.6.2000. Mr. N.K. 3 Thakur, Advocate has submitted that his client has been acquitted by the trial court under section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled law that the findings of the criminal trial are not binding upon the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has to come to independent conclusions on its own on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties to enable it to award just and fair compensation. There is ample evidence on record to establish that the accident was caused by a jeep driven by appellant No.1. The respondent-objector has proved the cash memo/invoice Ex.PW-5/B which shows that he had paid a sum of Rs. 19,200/- to the doctor towards his treatment. Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-4) has proved the copy of certificate Ex.PW-4/A. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration that the money has been spent by the respondent-objector during the course of treatment has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 22,800/- as compensation, including a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of pain and suffering. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the pain and suffering is proper and need not be interfered with. The plea of Mr. Ajay Sharma, that his client was entitled to more compensation under this head is liable to be rejected. Mr. Ajay Sharma has also failed to point out what kind of business his client was doing at the time of accident. He has only proved that his client remained under treatment in private nursing home with effect from 6.6.2000 to 10.6.2000. The respondent-objector has not placed any medical bill/ cash memos on record to prove that he has spent a sum of Rs. one lakh toward the medical treatment. In the absence of any cogent 4 evidence placed on record, the amount cannot be enhanced as prayed for by Mr. Ajay Sharma. Cumulatively it is held that there is no merit in the First Appeal against Order (MVA) as well as in the Cross-objections and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), J. July 17, 2008 *Awasthi*