IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 475 OF 2005 Raj Pal Singh S/o Bharosa Singh … Appellant. Vs. Diwakar Kothiyal and 2 others …. Respondents. Mr.M.C. Pant, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.3. Dated: 11-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23-7-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. IV, Dehradun in MACP No. 220/2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.2003 at about 8 A.M. Claimant, Rajpal Singh, was returning to his home Dharampur, from Dehradun Bus Station riding in his Motorcycle Bajaj Clever U.P. 07-E-1083 and when he reached in front of Hotel Richirich, Dehradun, Santro Car bearing registration No. U.P. 07-L-3159 came there at a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle on wrong side. The car driver fled away leaving the car at the spot. Due to the accident, the injured sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in Doon Hospital by Deepak Anand. On 12-3-2003, the claimant was operated for his right thigh. He remained admitted at Doon Hospital from 24-2-2003 to 12-3-2003. He was also treated at his home from 13.3.2003 to 26.5.2003 in the care of Dr. Johari. The claimant has alleged that due to injuries he has become permanently disabled. 2 3- The opposite Parties 1 and 2, driver and owner of the Santro Car U.P. 07-L-3159, filed written statement and denied the contents of the petition. They alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of Motorcyclist. They also alleged that the Car was insured with United Insurance Company and the Company is liable to pay the compensation. 4- The Opposite Party No.3, insurer of the Car, also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement, denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that the accident had occurred due to own fault of the Motorcyclist and the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle have not been arrayed as party, therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is also alleged that the car was not being driven by an insured driver, therefore, the Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. The claimant in support of his case produced himself as P.W.1, and Deepak Anand as P.W.2, and also filed documentary evidence. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence. However the driver and the owner of the Car filed photo copies of insurance policy and driving license. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 2,21,660/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till final payment payable by O.P.No.3, United India Insurance Company. 3 6- Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and as such the same is liable to be enhanced. 9- From perusal of the award it reveals that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 89,660/- towards medical expenses. The claimant has submitted the bills and receipts amounting to Rs. 97,986/- but the tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 8,326/- as the said bills were not issued in the name of the injured. The claimant did not adduce any reliable evidence pertaining to his income, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/ per annum for calculating the loss suffered by the claimant. The claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident therefore a multiplier of 17 has been adopted by the Tribunal. The disability suffered by the claimant in the accident was assessed up-to 40%, therefore the loss of income has rightly been calculated 15,000/- x 17 x 40/100= Rs. 1,02,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards future prospect, and mental and physical pain and suffering. 10- Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that although the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the injured has passed the written examination of S.I.C.P.O. and he was called for interview and he had to appear in some other examinations but 4 due to the accident he could not appear in the said tests and he was having a bright future, yet the Tribunal did not award a handsome amount towards the head future prospects. 11- The above submission of learned counsel has no force. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards better future, pain and suffering, and in my opinion, he cannot be awarded more amount under this head, as it cannot be said with certainty that the claimant would have passed the interview and achieved a good job, if he not met with this accident. 12- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find infirmity in the method of calculating the amount of compensation by the learned Tribunal. 13- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 23-7-2005 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5