THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 426 of 2007 Rafiq Ahmad .. Appellant. Versus Shareef Ahmad Saifi & another .. Respondents. Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, Advocate for appellant Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: 24.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 10-09-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 222/2006, Rafiq Ahmad versus Shareef Ahmad Saifi and another. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 5.3.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. while claimant-Rafiq Ahmad was going on foot at G.I.C. School Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, suddenly driver of scooter U.A.04B-7050 coming from rear side applied the brake in order to save the cow coming in the way, but he lost control over the scooter and hit the claimant from the rear side, due to which claimant received severe injuries and tibia and fibula of his both legs were fractured. The scooterist also received injuries in the accident. It has been alleged that about a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been spent on the treatment of the claimant 2 and his treatment is still going on. The claimant became disabled due to injuries sustained by him in the accident and doctors advised him to take rest for six months. It has also been alleged that claimant used to work as Carpenter and earn a sum of Rs.6000/- per month, but due to the said injuries he is not able to do work hard. Therefore, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-Shareef Ahmad Saifi, owner of Scooter No. U.A. 04B-7050 filed his written statement denying almost all the contents of the claim petition and alleged that driver of vehicle was not at fault. The accident had taken place due to own negligence of claimant himself. It has also been alleged that driver of his vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle of answering respondent was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, rests upon the opposite party/insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and alleged that it had not been given any information of the accident. It has also been alleged that vehicle in question was not being plied in accordance with terms and conditions of insurance policy. The amount of compensation has excessively been claimed by the claimant. Therefore, the claim petition filed against the answering respondent deserves to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the 3 pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., vide impugned judgment and award dated 10.09.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted before this Court that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite meagre. He has also submitted that interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has supported the impugned award and submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 4 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 scooter no. U.A.04B- 7050, in which claimant-Rafiq Ahmad received severe injuries on his person as well as in his both legs. 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 and scooter in question was insured with opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Company Limited. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal has dealt with this point while deciding issue no. 4 in the impugned judgment and award. The claimant himself has examined as PW-1 and stated on oath that after the accident he was admitted in Sai Hospital, where his treatment remained continued and a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been spent on his treatment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- is also likely to be incurred in his medical treatment. This witness further stated that he was 37 years of age at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.6000/- per month by working as Carpenter and he became disabled due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. In his cross- examination, this witness stated that in the accident his legs were fractured and two bones were also broken. This witness denied this suggestion that he filed claimed compensation in an excessive manner and filed forged case in order to get the compensation. The record reveals that although the 5 claimant has filed bills pertaining to the medical treatment amounting to Rs. 4,412/-, but they have not been proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. The record further shows that neither any disability certificate of the claimant has been filed on record nor any doctor has been produced in this regard. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was of the view on the basis of guess work that tibia and fibula of the claimant were fractured and therefore, the claimant must have spent about a sum of Rs.10,000/- on his treatment. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred in medical treatment of the claimant. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lump sum towards mental, physical pain and agony and economic loss. In this way, the claimant has been awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. As far as interest is concerned, the same also appears to be justified and needs no interference. I am of the view that learned Tribunal has adopted absolutely right method in awarding the amount of compensation. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.09.2007 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP