IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 213/2008 Ashfaq Ahmad … Appellant. Versus Harvinder Singh and others … Respondents. Mr. Rushi Khan holding brief of Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent No.2/United India Insurance Company Ltd. Dated: 15-10-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15-3-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/Ist F.T.C. Haldwani, District Nainital, in MACT Case No. 120 of 2006. 2- The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 9-5-2006 the claimant Ashfaq Ahmad was standing on the road side near Chauki Kathanni in order to board the Bus so as to go to his village. Suddenly. Truck No. U.A.B-4006 came there from Kichha side and dashed him in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was brought to Amrit Hospital, Haldwani and seeing his precarious condition the doctors referred him to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani. The claimant at the time of accident was 22 years of age and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from the profession of food grain. The claimant filed petition for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs. 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of offending truck contested the claim petition by filing written statement 2 and alleged that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of truck driver. The driver was having valid driving license and the Truck was insured with United India Insurance Company. Hence the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, if any. 4- The opposite party No.2, United India Insurance Company also filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. The insurance company also pleaded that the accident has taken place in the District of Udham Singh Nagar and the Tribunal at District Nainital has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition. The Insurance Company further alleged that the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation until the owner of the truck can not establish before the Tribunal that the driver was valid driving license and the vehicle had valid documents. 5- The opposite party No.3, driver of the truck also contested the petition and alleged that the accident was not the result of any fault on his part. He alleged that the vehicle was being driven in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and he was having valid driving license. 6- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the matter. Thereafter evidence was adduced in the petition. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record came to the conclusion that the Tribunal at Haldwani, District Nainital has jurisdiction to try the petition, as the claimant resides at Haldwani near Noori Mosque on a rented house. The Tribunal also found that the driver of the truck was having valid driving license and it was insured with 3 United India Insurance Company, therefore, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,500/- as compensation against United India Insurance Company, along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 7- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement. 8- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the injured/claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident has become permanently disabled upto an extent of 45% but the tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability. He further submitted that the tribunal has awarded meager amount towards medical expenses. Therefore, the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 10- Perusal of impugned judgment and award reveals that the injured was treated in Sushila Tewari Hospital Haldwani where he had to undergo operation and rod was inserted in his hip bone. The claimant has claimed Rs. Two lacs for medical expenses and loss of earning for a period of six months but he has submitted the medical bills and prescriptions for a sum of Rs. 73,500/-. To prove these bills P.W.2, Dr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht was produced before the Tribunal. This witness has proved these bills. This witness has further alleged that the claimant will have to undergo operation in future on which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- will be spent. Therefore the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 73,500/- 4 towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on future operation. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards grievous injuries. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income for six months and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards physical and mental pain. In this way total compensation of Rs. 73,500/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 1,03,500/- has been awarded. No disability certificate has been filed on behalf of the claimant. The P.W.2, Dr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht in his deposition has stated that the claimant is able to perform his normal work. In the above facts of the case the I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a justified amount towards the compensation and the same do not require interference by this Court. 11- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.3.2008 is hereby confirmed. ISB ( B.C. Kandpal, J. ) 5