IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 516 of 2008 Inam Ali … Appellant Vs Union of India & others … Respondents Sri T.S. Phartiyal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/injured against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2008 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. IInd in M.A.C.T. Case No. 177 of 2004, Inam Ali Vs Union of India & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2003, the appellant/claimant was going from Haripur Kalsi to Saskiya, Dehradun on his scooter No. DL65/6744. At about 10:45 a.m. when he reached near AMIMA main gate, suddenly, a Saktiman Truck bearing registration No. 00D/1313582, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, collided with the said scooter, in which, the appellant/claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the appellant/claimant, he has spent Rs. 1,70,000/- on his medical treatment. Hence, the said amount was claimed by the appellant/claimant as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written 2 statements before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 35,130/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment as compensation vide judgment and award dated 30.09.2008. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. 6. Heard Sri T.S. Phartiyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck in question, it appears to be perfectly justified and I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal without assessing the evidence properly awarded very meager amount. The Tribunal without considering the evidence awarded the 3 amount, which appears to be erroneous and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 9. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 3, but the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 30,130/- in favour of the appellant, which does not require any interference and the finding recorded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. But the Tribunal has ignored this aspect that the amount under the head of pain and suffering for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is a meager amount, keeping in view the injuries sustained by the injured/victim in the accident. Although, the claimant/victim has not suffered any financial loss on account of the injuries sustained by him but the injuries which he had suffered in the accident certainly might have put him under the mental agony and physical pain and suffering for a long time, as he was admitted in the hospital for several days and remained on medical leave for 111 days. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal as Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering is certainly on the lower side. I am of the view that the claimant/victim should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for physical pain and suffering as well as mental agony for the injuries the claimant/victim suffered. 10. Further the Tribunal has not taken into account this aspect that the treatment of the claimant/victim is still going on with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Therefore, the claimant should have also been awarded certain amount for the future medical treatment and I am of the view that the claimant/victim is entitled for a sum 4 of Rs. 10,000/- under this head. As far as the rate of interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award is concerned, the same shall remain intact. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 55,130/- along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 11. For the aforesaid observation, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 55,130/- instead of Rs. 35,130/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 22.07.2009 ASWAL