IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 188 of 2002 National Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Chaman Lal and others .. Respondents. Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for claimants/ respondents. Dated: 22-4-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been filed against the judgment and award dated 23.5.2002, passed by Additional District Judge/I F.T.C./Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar, in MACP No. 65/1997, Chaman Lal Vs. Vikas Dhawan and others. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 24.7.1997 at about 10.30 A.M. when claimant Chaman Lal was going to Ramwala from Jwalapur riding in his Vicky No. U.P. X-5854, Bus No. DL-1P-8160, dashed the motorcycle due to which Chaman Lal sustained grievous injuries. He has to undergo operation of his right leg and ultimately the leg was amputated from above the knee. According to the claimant he has spent about one lac rupees on his treatment and in future also he will have to spent about Rs. 50,000/-. He also alleged that due to the accident he also suffered monetary loss of his work. 3- The opposite party/National Insurance Company contested the petition by filing its written 2 statement and alleged that at the time of accident the driver of the Bus involved in the accident was not possessing valid and effective driving license, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4- The learned tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their case. 5- The learned tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire evidence available on record, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and directed the National Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount of compensation within 45 days, failing which interest @ 12% per annum from the date filing the petition shall be payable on the above amount of compensation. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 8- So far as the factum of accident is concerned, the learned tribunal has considered the same on issue no.1. P.W.1, Chaman Lal Ahuja, is the claimant/injured. He has deposed that the Bus driver dashed his moped from behind in a rash 3 and negligent manner, due to which he fell down and got injured. P.W.2, Dharmendra is the son of the injured. He was a pillion rider on the moped. He also alleged that the Bus driver dashed the moped in a rash and negligent manner as he was trying to overtake the moped. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by this witness at the police station. No evidence was adduced to contradict the above statement of the witnesses from the other side. Therefore, the learned tribunal was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident was the result of rash and negligence on the part of Bus driver. I do not find any ground to interfere in the above finding recorded by the tribunal. 9- The impugned award has also been challenged on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the tribunal has committed error in fixing liability of the insurance company. D.W.1, Manoj Kumar Panwar has been produced by the insurance company before the tribunal to substantiate its submission that the driver of the offending Bus was not having valid driving license to drive heavy motor vehicle. This witness has deposed that he had gone to the office of A.R.T.O. Muzaffarnagar to know the genuineness of the driving license of the driver Om Kumar and he came to know that firstly the driving license was issued in his name to drive the motorcycle and motor car on 19-4-1996 and on 27- 6-97 the license was converted into LMV (PE). Thereafter, on 4-8-97 this license was converted in HTV (PE). It is also mentioned in the above report 4 that the driving license is valid upto 26-6-2000. In his cross-examination this witness D.W.1, Manoj Kumar Panwar, has deposed that he is not employed in the office of National Insurance Company. He is an Advocate by profession. He also does not know whether Om Kumar was driver of vehicle No. DL-1P/8160 or not?. The copy of driving license has not been filed on record. The tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the insurance company has not been able to establish this fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing the HMV driving license, by cogent and reliable evidence and the liability of the insurance company towards third party risk does not abolish. I do not find any illegality in the above finding recorded by the tribunal and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 10- So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, disability certificate paper No. 32-C issued by Chief Medical Officer Haridwar, has been filed, in which loss of working efficiency upto 80% has been mentioned due to amputation of right leg of the claimant. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of earning. A further sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded towards mental and physical pain and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- has also been awarded towards medical expenses. In this way the total amount awarded by the tribunal comes to Rs. 1,50,000/ + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-= Rs. 2,00,000/-. In my opinion the tribunal has awarded a just and proper amount towards the compensation and the same does not require any interference. 5 11- For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. 13- The statutory amount of compensation deposited by the appellant with this court, at the time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB