IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 451 of 2005 Smt. Jagjeet Kaur … Appellant Vs Pooran & 2 others … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant/appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/4th Fast Track Court, Dehradun whereby the claim petition was decreed in favour of the claimant for Rs. 2,90,000/- as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2003 at about 08:45 a.m. the appellant – Smt. Jagjeet Kaur was coming along with her husband Harminder Singh from Haridwar to Dehradun in Scooty No. UP07J/1366. The said scooty was being driven by Harminder Singh very cautiously and slowly on his left side and the appellant was pillion rider on the said scooter. When they reached near Bhaniyawala Tiraha, the offending truck No. UP07G/6555 was coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the truck hit the said scooty of Harminder Singh while making effort to overtake another vehicle. In this accident, Harminder as well as Smt. Jagjeet Kaur sustained multiple injuries. At the time of accident, the appellant was 39 years and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month by tuition. Therefore, the appellant/claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for Rs. 16,00,000/- as compensation. 2 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement denying the allegation made in the claim petition. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- against the Insurance Company vide judgment and award dated 20.07.2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 7. In the oral evidence of Smt. Jagjeet Kaur (P.W.1) and Sri Jagmohan Kumar (P.W.2) was recorded. In order to prove her case, she has also filed F.I.R., medical bills, medical certificate, disability certificate, income tax return etc. The Insurance Company did not adduce any oral evidence. The Tribunal relied upon the statements of Smt. Jagjeet Kaur and Jagmohan Kumar as well as on the basis of the map available on record decided the issue with regard to the rash and negligence upon the truck No. UP07G/6555. Perusal of the paper No. 187-C1 of the record shows that that driver of the said truck was having the valid driving licence. So far as the issue No. 4 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded the statement of Jagmohan Kumar (P.W.2) who was the eyewitness of the accident. He has stated that on 10.10.2003, 3 he was repairing his tyre at Bhaniyawala Tiraha. At about 08:30-09:00 a.m. one lady was sitting in scooty as a pillion rider. Suddenly one truck No. UP07G/6555 came from the Doewala side and turn the truck to his extremely right due to which the said truck hit the scooty. In this accident, Harmindra Singh sustained injury on his head while Jagjeet Kaur sustained injuries on her left leg. They were immediately rushed to Dehradun in Doon hospital. On the date of accident, Sri Harminder Singh was having valid driving licence which was valid upto 17.01.2004. On the basis of the statement of Sri Jagmohan as well as copy of the driving licence which is paper No. 144 C1, the Tribunal has decided this issue against the Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has produced medical bills for Rs. 3,12,727/- whereas the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 25% amount of the total medical bills submitted by the appellant before the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the appellant has spent more money in her treatment but the Tribunal did not consider this aspect, as she could not produce any bill. 9. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has not filed the genuine bills. He invited my attention towards paper No. 62B and 63B which are bill and receipt of Rs. 7,000/-. He has further invited our attention towards the paper No. 67B and 83B which are also bill and receipt of same amount and in the same way paper No. 88B and 95B are also bill and receipt of same amount. Therefore, the claimant have submitted the bill and payment receipts of the same, hence the Tribunal has 4 rightly deducted 25% amount of the total bills submitted by the appellant. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record available before me, I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- towards medical bills, which appears to be justified. The Tribunal considered the disability of the appellant as 45% and considered the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition considered this fact that the appellant remained in the hospital from 11.10.2003 to 17.10.2003 and also considered this fact that she was not able to do the tuition work and awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of tuition during the period of treatment. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards physical and mental pain. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- (30000 + 25000 + 2,35,000) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lesser side. 12. Having considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice it would be just and proper that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal should be 7½% instead of 6%. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified upto the extent that the appellants are entitled to get the same @ 7½% per 5 annum instead of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.04.2008 ASWAL