IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 678 of 2006 Sri Ram Lagan Pandey … Appellant Vs Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta & others … Respondents Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/VIth F.T.C., Dehradun in M.A.C. No. 254 of 2001, Ram Lagan Pandey Vs Sanjay Kumar & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2001, the claimant/appellant was going from his workshop to Anand Industrial Area, Patel Nagar, Dehradun on his moped No. UP07A/8156. At about 04:30 p.m., when he reached near Lalpul Patel Nagar, suddenly, a bus bearing registration No. UP07/4865 coming from the wrong side and hit the moped of the claimant, due to which claimant/appellant received injuries on his body. He was admitted in the Doon Hospital, Dehradun and thereafter, he was referred to the Kohli Nursing Home, where his leg was operated and rod was inserted in his leg and remained on bed for a period of three months. According to the claimant, on the date of accident, he was carrying bulbs for supply worth of Rs. 8,000/-, which were totally damaged. It has also pleaded that he was running a workshop and used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month, therefore, 2 he had filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 19,22,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in the claim petition. Opposite party No. 3 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant himself. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation vide judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. Although the amount of compensation awarded to be paid by the Insurer of the vehicle i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. but the Insurance Company will have the recoverable right from the owner/appellant of the vehicle in question. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 3 7. As far as the question of rash and negligent driving is concerned, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of Ram Lagan (P.W.1) and B.K. Pandey (P.W.3) came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the driver of bus No. UP07/4865. Both these witness have stated that the accident took place at Lalpul, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Sri B.K. Pandey (P.W.3) is the independent eyewitness and the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the evidence available on record has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus in question. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1, relating to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal decided the issue No. 2 wherein the Tribunal has given the recoverable right to the insurer of the bus. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the driver of the bus has stated that he was having the valid and effective driving licence but he could not produce any document, which may support his version. Therefore, in the absence of any document, pertaining to the driving licence of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal has rightly granted the recoverable right to the insurer of the bus. I do not find any ground to interfere on this point. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the ground that the Tribunal awarded the amount of compensation but the Tribunal has committed error by not granting the interest on the same. Therefore, he has submitted before the Court that amount of compensation be awarded along with interest. 4 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has not raised any dispute on the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. It reveals from the perusal of the impugned judgment and award that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation to the claimant, but the Tribunal has not awarded any rate of interest to be paid on the amount of compensation. I don’t think that the absence of the direction for paying the interest on the amount of compensation would justify the impugned judgment and award. I therefore, direct that the claimant is entitled for an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. The recoverable right given by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company against the owner of the offending vehicle shall remain intact. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 19.12.2008 ASWAL