IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No.320 of 2007 Sukhdev Prasad Mishra …Appellant Versus Mahavir Singh Kharola & another … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for appellant Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: September 12, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.6.2005 passed by MACT/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in MACP No. 50 of 2000, Sukhdev Prasad Mishra vs. Mahabir Singh & another. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged out from the record, are that on 16.11.98 at 7.30 p.m. when claimant was crossing road from Petrol Pump Old Tehri, a truck being driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed claimant, due to which he sustained injuries on his person. It has been alleged that claimant remained admitted in hospital for a long time and a huge amount has been incurred on his treatment as well as he suffered physical and mental pain and agony. Thus, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Opposite party no. 1 filed written statement admitting the factum of insurance of vehicle in question. He has also admitted that all papers 2 relating to said vehicle were valid and effective, but denied rest of the contents. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition on legal grounds. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in the claim petition: (1) Whether this accident took palace on 16.11.98 at 7.30 p.m. at petrol pump, Tehri by Tipper Truck No. UP08/5057 due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting injuries to the claimant, so its effect? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the opposite parties? Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour of claimant, against opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of award, vide judgment and award 18.6.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. 3 Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that on 16.11.1998 at 7.30 p.m. vehicle No. U.P.08-5047 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the claimant, due to which he sustained serious injuries on his person. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, the claimant has stated in claim petition that he sustained injuries on his leg as well as other parts of body in the accident and he was admitted in Joint Hospital, Old Tehri where he was treated, in which a huge amount has been expended and he suffered mental pain and agony and his treatment is still going on. The claimant has further stated that he was admitted in hospital just after the accident, but he could not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal in order to establish as to whether he actually remained admitted in hospital. The claimant did not care to produce any document relating to his admission in hospital in order to show that he had in fact remained admitted in hospital. The injuries of claimant were medically checked up and it was found that injuries of claimant were simple in nature. The claimant has also pleaded that about Rupees One Lac has been 4 incurred on his treatment and filed medical bills (paper no. 35C/2 to 45C/4) amounting to Rs.75,996/- and counsel for insurance company has doubted the authenticity of said bills on the ground that since they are of the year 1999 and accident took place on 16.11.1998. The claimant further could not adduce any plausible and reliable evidence in order to show as to what actual amount had been incurred by him on his medical treatment. The Tribunal in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence was rightly of the view that the claimant must have incurred a sum of Rs.5,000/- against his medical expenses including purchase of medicines etc. and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- against pain and suffering which also appears to be justified and proper. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the claimant, which appears to be a just and reasonable amount of compensation. The interest @ 5% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award also appears to be justified. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 5