IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 229 of 2007 Promod Kumar … Appellant Vs Brahma Pal Singh & another … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.03.2007 passed by M.A.C.T./1st Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 24 of 2008, Promod Kumar Vs Braham Pal Singh & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2005 at about 01:30 p.m. the claimant – Promod Kumar was going on foot from Railway Colony, Kashipur and when he reached near Pant Park, a motor cycle No. UA06A/2553 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit the injured. In this accident, the injured sustained multiple injuries. According to the claim petition, he has spent Rs. 75,000/- on his medical treatment, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Bhrampal owner of the motorcycle has contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal. He has alleged that on the date of accident, the said motorcycle was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. He has further alleged that on that day, the motorcycle was being driven by Manoj Jayaswal who was having the valid driving licence. 2 4. Opposite party No. 2 – The New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the insurer was not informed about the accident by the owner of the motorcycle. 5. 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. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant vide judgment and award dated 20.03.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and perused the record. 8. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal after considering each and every aspect of the matter held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal did not take into account the evidence available on record. He has submitted that the claimant has spent Rs. 57,000/- on his medical treatment and suffered loss of the income of Rs. 25,000/-, when the claimant remained on bed. Therefore, the Tribunal 3 has committed illegality while awarding the amount of compensation. 9. In order to decide the sole controversy in this case, I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as entire record available before me. From the perusal of paper No. 6C/6 which is the total bill of Chamunda Hospital for a sum of Rs. 41,500/- which appears to be genuine one. The Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation towards medical expenses also considered the bill submitted by the claimant before the Tribunal awarded Rs. 45,000/- in lump sum and the same appears to be justified. After perusing the entire record, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. 10. As far as the amount mentioned by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of earning, I also do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as the claimant was working as a Clark and used to earn Rs. 2,500/- and it has come on record that the claimant remained under treatment for 20-25 days. Therefore, the claim of the appellant appears to be vague. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards medical treatment and further Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering which appears to be quite reasonable. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.09.2008 ASWAL