IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2006 Shiv Raj Singh … Appellant Versus Lalit Mohan Pathak & another … Respondents Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for appellant None for respondents Dated: June 19, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of award of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 1.4.2006 and decree dated 27.4.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 115/2002, Shiv Raj Singh vs. Lalit Mohan Pathak & another. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.2002 at 8.45 p.m. when claimant-Shiv Raj Singh was going on foot from Ghantakaran to Ulkadevi Mandir, as soon as he reached near the Gate of G.G.I.C., Pithoragarh, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. U.A.-05/511 coming from the side of Chandak rashly and negligently came and dashed the claimant from the opposite side. In the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries on his person. The claimant claimed a 2 sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation along with interest against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1-onwer of vehicle filed written statement and admitted that he was the registered owner of vehicle in question. He has pleaded that claimant has presented the matter by exaggerating it and he did not adduce any cogent evidence in support of his income. He has also pleaded that driver of answering opposite party was driving the vehicle cautiously in a slow speed and was not at fault. He has further pleaded that vehicle in question was insured with opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed written statement denying the liability to pay the compensation as at the time of accident papers of vehicle in question were not valid. It has been pleaded that vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.64,590/- in favour of claimant, payable by opposite party no. 2-The 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by insurance company within a period of two months, failing which an interest @ 7% per annum shall be payable to the claimant from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 01.04.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of award of compensation. Heard Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for appellant-claimant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the amount of award granted by the Tribunal is meager and liable to be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The record reveals that the claimant submitted the bills for medical expenses, C.T. Scan etc. amounting to Rs.62,590/-. Investigation in this regard was got made by Opposite party no. 2-insurance company and statement of investigator-Mohan Singh Dangwal was also recorded, who admitted this fact in his statement that he made the enquiry from District Hospital, Pithoragarh and 4 Bareilly, in which necessary statements were also recorded. No such statements were recorded which may show that claimant was not treated either in Pithoragrh or in Bareilly. Thus, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the medical bills submitted by the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.62,590/- under the head of medical expenses, which appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- for mental agony, which appears to be justified. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.64,590/- as compensation to the claimant, which appears to be justified and needs no interference by this Court. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. So far as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same requires slight modification by this Court. The Tribunal has directed the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of passing the impugned award, failing which, interest @ 7% per annum shall be payable from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. In my opinion, in the interest of justice, the interest @ 7% per annum should be awarded on the amount of compensation, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual payment. 5 In view of above discussion the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment (instead of conditional interest of 7% per annum imposed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP