IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 477 of 2007 Sandeep Kumar S/o Sri Sahab Singh R/o Village Kalori, Patti Langoor Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal … Appellant Vs. 1. Vinod Singh S/o Sri Rameshwar Singh R/o Village Kalori Patti Langoor Tehsil Kotdwar District Garhwal (Owner) 2. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Kotdwar, Garhwal 3. Gabar Singh @ Dhirander Singh R/o Village Kaflari Tehsil Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal … Respondents Sri P.S. Dhanu, learned counsel for the appellant. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 13.07.2007 passed by District Judge/M.A.C.T., Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 54 of 2005, Sandeep Kumar Vs Vinod Singh & others whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Sandeep Singh on 30.06.2002 was travelling in a jeep No. UP06/319, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner. When the said jeep reached at Gumkhal-Chelusain Motor Marg it met with an accident at about 07:00 p.m. due to which he sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the hospital at Kotdwar. Thereafter, he was referred to Dehradun and then to P.G.I., Chandigarh for better treatment in which he has incurred Rs. 3.00 lacs on his treatment. According to him, at the time of the accident, he was earning by tuition or by agricultural work, therefore, he filed claim petition for Rs. 6,00 lacs as compensation against the owner as well as against the Insurance Company. 3. The owner of the jeep as well as the Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing their written statement before the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition in favour of the claimant/appellant by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard Sri P.S. Dhanu, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition did not consider this aspect that the claimant/appellant was an agriculturist or an illiterate libourer and without his right hand throughout his life, he is unable to do any work. 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it reveals that the Tribunal considered the age of the claimant as 17 years and on the basis of the disability certificate filed by the claimant, the Tribunal considered 65% disability of the claimant and the claimant/appellant deposited the bills of Rs. 46,500/- incurred by him during the treatment awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Tribunal has not awarded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac for future treatment, which the appellant is yet to undergo. 10. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal assessed the disability of the claimant 65% on the basis of the disability certificate filed by the claimant himself before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award is perfectly justified which cannot be interfered at this stage. I do not find any merit in the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.03.2008 ASWAL