IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 282 of 2005 Vikram Singh … Appellant Vs M.A.C.T., District Judge Pauri Gahrwal & others … Respondents Sri Promod Balwal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 4 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- along with condition interest of 9% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant – Vikram Singh was engaged as a conductor/helper in vehicle No. UTS/1240. On 25.09.2001 at about 08:00 a.m., he was going in the said vehicle from Lansdowne, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle in question met with an accident in which, the injured/claimant sustained serious injuries on his body. According to the claimant, he had spent Rs. 70,000/- on his medical treatment. Hence, an amount of Rs. 6,70,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimant/appellant. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 – Ramavtar (owner of the vehicle) has contested the claim petition on the ground that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having the 2 valid and effective driving licence. It has pleaded that on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the insurer of the vehicle. 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective driving licence. It has also pleaded that the owner of the vehicle was not having the valid documents pertaining to the vehicle in question. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the above grounds. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 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. 55,000/- vide judgment and award dated 24.11.2004. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimant/appellant has come up in appeal for enhancement before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Promod Balwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 8. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 3 the offending vehicle No. UPS/1240 is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. As the appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the only point to be discussed in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be held to be justified or not. 10. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has considered this aspect while deciding issue No. 5, but the approach adopted by the Tribunal does not appear to be convincing. The Tribunal although has taken into account that the victim in this case has suffered 40% disability. The victim has filed the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board which is available on record as paper No. 25C and according to that disability certificate the victim has suffered the disability upto an extent of 40%. The disability certificate filed by the victim has neither the controversy by the Insurance Company nor any objection has been raised by the Insurance Company with regard to the authenticity of the same. Therefore, for practical purpose, it would be considered that the victim has suffered 40% disability, although the victim has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence in order to establish the actual disability suffered by the victim/injured. The claimant has also not adduced any evidence as to whether the disability suffered by the victim is likely to minimize in the near future or not, but in any case, I am of the view that amount awarded by the Tribunal in this head as Rs. 30,000/- appears to be on lesser side. I am of the 4 view that the victim should be awarded at least a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. 11. So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal for physical and mental agony as well as financial loss is concerned, I am of the view that the sufficient amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under this head and it does not require any interference. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal for the amount of compensation is conditional, it does not appear to be just and proper. I am of the view that the rate of interest awarding the claimant should be awarded the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 75,000/-. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- instead of Rs. 55,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till the date of actual payment (instead of conditional interest). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.06.2009 ASWAL