THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 84 of 2006 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant. Versus Naveen Chandra Singh Negi & ors. .. Respondents. Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 Dated: 24.06.2009 Judgment [Per : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 21-11-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MACT Case No. 73/2004, Naveen Chandra Singh Negi Vs. Puran Singh & others. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 22-01-2004 claimant Naveen Chandra Singh Negi was boarded in the vehicle No. DLP-01/7300 and was coming from Agroda to Pauri. At about 11.30 a.m. vehicle in question met with an accident between Buwakhal and Dandapani at Ghantaghar due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. As a result of accident claimant sustained injuries and was admitted in Pauri Hospital and later he was referred to CSI Hospital, Dehradun for further treatment. The claimant filed a claim petition for grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. It has been alleged that the owner of the vehicle in 2 question was Puran Singh and at the time of accident driver of the vehicle in question was Ganga Singh. At the time of the accident the insurer of the vehicle in question was Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 3- Opposite party No. 1, Puran Singh, owner of the vehicle No. DLP-01/7300, has filed his written statement stating therein that the vehicle in question was comprehensively insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. upto 06-04-2005. He alleged that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle in question had no fault and he was driving the vehicle carefully. The accident was occurred due to technical fault of vehicle in question. He further stated that at the time of accident the driver had valid driving licence and all the related documents of the vehicle in question were deposited in the RTO office, Pauri. 4- Opposite party No. 2, Ganga Singh, driver of vehicle No. DLP-01/7300, has filed his written statement stating therein that all the documents/papers of the vehicle were valid at the time of the accident and he had no fault in the said accident. At the time of the accident he had valid driving licence and accident was occurred due to technical fault in the vehicle in question. 5- Opposite party no. 3, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement alleging therein that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was not insured and it had no knowledge about the accident. It further alleged that at the time of the accident vehicle in question was being used by the 3 owner against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the said vehicle was carrying more passengers than its capacity. It further alleged that at the time of accident the documents/papers of vehicle in question were not valid and the driver of the said vehicle had no valid driving licence. It further alleged that the amount of compensation has been claimed excessively and exaggeratedly. 6- On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the claim petition. Parties led oral as well as documentary in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with conditional simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against opposite party no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vide impugned judgment and award dated 21-11- 2005. 7- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 8- None has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 in spite of sufficient service of notice, for the last several dates, therefore, heard Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4 9- As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. D.L.P.-01- 7300, in which claimant-Navin Chandra Negi received severe injuries on his person. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence and insurance of the said vehicle was valid. The Tribunal also recorded the finding that on the date of accident vehicle in question was being plied in accordance with and terms and conditions of insurance policy. 10- As far as amount of compensation to be awarded is concerned, the Tribunal, while deciding the issue No. 5, has discussed this aspect, but the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal appears to be arbitrary. The claimant has filed bills pertaining to the medical treatment amounting to Rs. 4,000/-. Although, the claimant stated in his claim petition that he spent about Rs. 50,000/ on account of medical treatment, the Tribunal without having any proper assessment with regard to medical expenditure has awarded Rs. 40,000/- under this head, which cannot be said to be justified in any manner. Further, the learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain and agony without according any justification in this regard. The learned Tribunal has, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. 11- I directed the counsel for the Insurance Company on the previous occasion to enquire as to how much amount has been deposited by the 5 Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company after seeking instructions from the company has informed the Court that a sum of Rs.55,226/- (including statutory amount deposited with this Court) has been deposited by the Company as yet. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstance, I think, it will be in the ends of justice that in case, if a sum of Rs.55,226/-, which has been deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal concerned, is awarded in favour of the claimant. This amount is awarded as lump sum as no interest on the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the claimant. 12- For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.55,226/- (Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred and twenty six only ) (without any interest), instead of Rs.1,40,000/- along with conditional interest as has been indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award 13- The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP