IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 62 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Govind Singh & others … Respondents Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri Vijay Khanduri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 19 of 2006, Govind Singh Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.07.2005, the claimant/injured was going along with his companion at Gochar, Hawai Patti. At about 07:00 p.m, a motorcycle No. UA11/0547, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant/injured, due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Base Hospital, Srinagar immediately after the accident, where his right leg was operated and unsuccessful. Thereafter he was referred to CMI, Dehradun for better treatment, where he was remained under treatment for more than two months. His right leg was amputated and he sustained 70% disablement. According to the claimant, at the time of the accident, he was 51 years of age and used to earn Rs. 16,500/- per month by doing teaching in State Adarsh School, Gochar. Hence, he filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 7,15,000/- as compensation. 2 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has denied the allegations made in the claim petition and it has also alleged that the motorcycle in question was being plied in violation of policy. Sri Rakesh Singh – owner of the motorcycle has stated that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Sri Mahavir Singh – driver of the motorcycle has contested the claim petition on the ground that he was driving the motorcycle very slowly and cautiously; therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. 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 cases. 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. 2,28,270/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 22.08.2007. 5. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 1 and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle appears to be perfectly justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal considering the documentary evidence produced by the owner as well as driver 3 of the motorcycle rightly held that the driver was having the valid driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal while deciding this issue. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal without scrutinizing the record properly awarded the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that the claimant is a government employee and he would have availed medical leave during the period he remained under treatment and the Tribunal has fell in error while calculating the amount of compensation by awarding a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as salary for four months. On the above grounds, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the record as well as impugned judgment. It is not disputed that the claimant/injured is a government teacher and he could have definitely availed the medical leave during the period he remained under treatment, but this fact cannot be denied that he sustained injuries on account of the said accident. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the claimant, which does not require any interference at this stage. The claimant has produced Dr. Rajeev Divedi (P.W.3) and Dr. U.S. Mehta (P.W.4), who have stated in their statement that the claimant paid a sum of Rs. 2,845/- for the medical treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal counted this amount at the time of calculating the amount of compensation. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation charges. The Tribunal also 4 considered this aspect that the claimant/injured remained in the hospital for more than two months and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of physical and mental pain. The Tribunal also considered this fact that in future, he would get hardness due to injuries received by him in this accident and awarded as sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony. The claimant has produced the medical bills for a sum of Rs. 1,30,425/- and the Tribunal awarded the same under the head of medical expenses. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,28,270/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.07.2009 ASWAL