IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 448 OF 2005 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through Regional Manager, Dehradun … Appellant. Vs. Sukharam and another .. Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dated: 09-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by Uttaranchal Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 19-7-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. IV Dehradun, in MACP No. 10 of 2004. 2- The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that on 6-5-2003 claimant Sukh Ram was going to Reig from Village Jolly, in Bus No. U.P. 06-1656. The driver was driving it very rashly and negligently. When the bus reached near Mani Mai Temple at about 3.30 P.M. suddenly the driver lost control over it and dashed with a tree, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was treated for about a month and he spent about Rs. One Lac on his treatment and he will have to spend more amount on his treatment in future also. The claimant claimed Rs. Nine Lacs as compensation. 3- The opposite parties filed joint written statement and alleged that at the spot the driver of the bus applied emergency brake in order to save the 2 motorcyclist coming from the front side due to which the bus dashed with a tree. According to them the claimant sustained simple injuries and exaggerated amount of compensation has been claimed. 4- The learned Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition and thereafter the parties led evidence before it. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment payable by Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- The only point which has been raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation and the same should be reduced by this Court. 8- From perusal of the impugned award, it reveals that the claimant has suffered 60% disability due the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum for the purposes of assessing the compensation. The injured was aged 65 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘5’ and the compensation for the 60% disability was assessed as Rs. 15,000/- X 5 X 60/100= 45,000/-. Besides this, the claimant filed medical prescriptions, amounting to Rs. 31,914/-, and the Tribunal awarded Rs, 32,000/- under this head. The 3 Tribunal also awarded Rs. 15,000/- for future expenses to be incurred by the claimant on his treatment. The claimant also claimed Rs. 1,500/- per month for towards expenses on attendant due to the injuries suffered by him but the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- under this head. The claimant has deposed that he has to keep an attendant as he can not move without the help of other person. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Further amount of Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical pain was also awarded. In this way the total compensation of Rs. 45,000/-+ Rs. 32,000/-+ Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- +Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 1,32,000/-. Looking to the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and the expenses and suffering of the claimant, the calculation of compensation made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till final payment, which also seems to be reasonable. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. 9- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is confirmed. 11- The amount of compensation, if deposited by the appellant in appeal before this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for payment to the claimant. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB