IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 249 of 2008 With Delay Condonation Application No.3364 of 2008 Afzal Ahmad …Appellant Versus Tasleem Ahmad & another ... Respondents Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate for appellant Sri Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: October 16, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for applicant-appellant on Delay Condonation Application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. I find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Both the parties have agreed to get the matter disposed of finally. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in MACC No. 153 of 2005, Sri Afzal Ahmad versus Tasleem Ahmad and others. 2 Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 16.08.2003 when claimant was going to Haldwani from Baheri on Jeep bearing Registration No. U.P.25F/5003 for purchasing the vegetables, at about 8.30 p.m. near Chandrawati Inter College, Dharamkante at Bareilly Road, Haldwani the said Jeep being driven by its driver rashly and negligently collided with a truck, due to which claimant and other passengers sitting in the jeep sustained grievous injuries and hands, legs and hips of claimant were fractured. The claimant was taken to hospital where he was referred to Lucknow Hospital, where he remained admitted for a long time. The claimant has also pleaded that due to the said accident claimant has become disabled. The claimant has further pleaded that about Rs.3,00,000/- has been spent on the treatment of claimant. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- as compensation against the opposite party. Opposite party no. 1-Tasleem Ahmad owner of vehicle in question contested the claim petition and filed his written statement. He has pleaded that his vehicle No. U.P.25F/5003 was insured with United India Insurance Company w.e.f. 04.07.2003 to 03.07.2004 and therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of insurance company. He has also pleaded that on the date of accident vehicle in question was being plied with all valid papers and his driver was having valid driving licence. He has further pleaded that vehicle of opposite party was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 15.02.2006 to 14.02.2007. Therefore, the liability to 3 pay the compensation, if any, is of opposite party no. 3/insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement denying the contents of claim petition and pleaded that claim petition filed by claimant was not maintainable as owner of vehicle in question had not any given information to opposite party no. 2-insurance company with regard to the said accident. It has also been pleaded that insurance company cannot be held liable unless it is proved that on the date of accident papers of vehicle in question were valid and driver was holding valid driving licence and he has not breached the conditions of insurance policy. Opposite party no. 1-owner of vehicle has not complied with the provisions of Section 64(V)(B) of Motor Vehicles Act. The amount of compensation claimed by claimant is excessive and exorbitant. The claimant had not made party to owner of alleged truck. It has further been pleaded that on the date of accident owner of vehicle in question of Sri Farooq Ahmad son of Tasleem Ahmad, who was not having valid driving licence. The insurance company stated that registered owner of vehicle in question is Tasleem Ahmad son of Kabeer Ahmad. Therefore, the claim petition filed by claimant deserves to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim 4 petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,491/- as compensation to the claimant, payable by opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 01.02.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2008, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has confined his argument to this aspect that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. He has also submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd from the income of appellant-claimant. He has further submitted that multiplier as well as interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that on 16.08.2003 at about 8.30 a.m. the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Vehicle No. U.P.25F/5003. Thus, 5 the claimant has proved the date, time and place of accident in his statement and it is also established that said accident had taken place due to rash and negligence of driver of vehicle in question. Perusal of record reveals that the said finding does not require any interference. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are cogent and clear. I am completely in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP-25F/5003 at the time of accident. The Tribunal has further held that driver of offending vehicle in question was having valid driving licence which was valid w.e.f. 28.07.2003 to 27.07.2004. The Tribunal also held that on the date of accident jeep in question was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and therefore the liability to pay the amount of compensation is of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I do not find any illegality in the said findings recorded by the Tribunal. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, the evidence on record reveals that claimant submitted verified copies of medical bills (paper no. 56C/1 to 56 C/28) towards his medical treatment and tickets of bus (paper nos.21C/10 to 21C/12), which comes to Rs.1,23,491/-. The Tribunal was of the view that claimant was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,23,491/- as compensation towards his medical expenses and awarded the said amount to the claimant, which appears to be justified and does not require any interference. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant for future expenditure 6 on his treatment, which also appears to be justified and needs no interference. The claimant filed his disability certificate (paper no. 21C/5), in which disability of claimant has been mentioned as 30%. The claimant stated that at the time of accident he had been doing the business of selling the vegetables and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month from the said business, but he did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence with regard to his income. The Tribunal in absence of any cogent evidence with regard to income of claimant has taken into consideration the minimum daily wages of claimant i.e. Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month. Thus, the annual income of claimant which has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.36,000/- appears to be justified. After deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.36,000/- the annual income of claimant has been worked out to Rs.24,000/- per annum, which also appears to be justified. The age of claimant has been mentioned as 42 years in disability certificate produced by the claimant. Further, as per Second Schedule prescribed in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of ‘15’ as adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. After adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,000 x 15=Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribunal also held that since the claimant has become 30% disabled due to the said accident, hence he is liable to get the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000- Rs.3,60,000 x 70%=Rs.1,08,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,23,491 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.1,08,000=Rs.2,41,491/- as compensation to the claimant. I do not find any 7 illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. I also do not find any reason to disturb the said finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and the same deserves to be confirmed. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2008 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP