IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 243 of 2004 Jagdish Chandra Garkoti, aged 50 years, S/o Late Shri Moti Ram Garkoti R/o Village Ladhaun Tukra, Patti – Kalukhan, Tehsil & District Champawat Presently residing at Takana Road, Pithoragarh, Tehsil & District Pithoragarh ….. Appellant Versus 1- Deepak Kharkwal s/o Shri Govind Ballabh Kharkwal, R/o Khari Bazar, Lohaghat, P.O. Lohaghat, Tehsil & District Champawat 2- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Haldwani, P.O. Haldwani, District Nainital ….. Respondents Sri. M.C. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent no.2. Dated: March 19, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 29.06.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, in M.A.C.T. No. 26 of 2003, Jagdish Chandra Garkoti vs. Deepak Kharkwal and another. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 22.12.2000, when the appellant/claimant was going on foot from Kanalichhina to Satgarh, the driver of Truck No. UP 29/0315 came while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased and other local people going on the road side near Satgarh, on account of which the deceased as well as the said truck fell in the ditch. The appellant/claimant was admitted in B. D. Pandey District Hospital and after that he was admitted in Keshlata Hospital and K. K. Hospital, Bareilly. It has been pleaded that appellant/claimant became 40% disabled due to the said accident and his treatment is till going on. The claimant/appellant was practicing as taxation lawyer at Pithoragarh and used to earn Rs. 5000/- per month, at the time of accident. The owner of offending truck-Deepak Kharkwal has filed his written statement admitting therein that he is the registered owner of offending Truck No. UP 29/0315. It has also been alleged that driver of offending truck was driving the vehicle very slowly and carefully and he applied the brake to save the people but due to frost the brake could not be applied in the vehicle. It has also been alleged that at the time of accident all papers of vehicle were valid and driver of offending truck was having valid driving licence and the said vehicle was insured. The insurance company-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has also filed written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition. It has been alleged that no information was given to Insurance Company by owner of the offending vehicle with regard to the accident. It has also been alleged that there is breach of conditions of insurance policy by owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues and after having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materiel available before it, decreed the claim petition in favour of claimant and awarded the compensation for a sum or Rs. 65,000/-, payable by both the opposite parties-owner of the vehicle as well as Insurance Company, jointly or severally. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by both the opposite party within a period of two month, failing which, opposite parties shall have to pay an interest of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of petition i.e. 12.5.2003 till the final payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri M. C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T. A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error by ignoring the receipts and bills of medicines submitted by the appellant/claimant. The appellant/claimant has fully proved that he spent Rs. 95,750/- on medicines in his treatment at Kaish Lata Hospital, K.K. Hospital & Raj Scanning Ltd. Besides this, the claimant/appellant proved the amount spent in traveling, which is Rs. 27,100/-. As far as merit of the case is concerned, the learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that no prescription and medical report was produced by the claimant, on the basis of which it can be presumed that in fact the medicines were prescribed by attending doctors and these medicines were purchased and used by the claimant. Mere submission of bills does not prove that in fact any amount was spent on the treatment. The learned Tribunal also held that it has not been brought on record in the claim petition that which organ of body of claimant was damaged and a huge sum of amount was spent in its treatment, as mentioned in the claim petition i.e Rs. 12,05,000/-. Therefore, the claimant has not been able to prove that what amount he has expended on his treatment. The claimant also filed paper no. 35-Ga, which is judgment and award passed by M.A.C.T. Pithoragarh, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Lohini vs. Deepak Kharkwal, relating to same accident, in which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the claimant being 50% disabled. The claimant/appellant in this case, also relied on the judgment passed by the Tribunal in case of claimant being 50% disabled. therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the claimant where the disability of the claimant was 40%. I do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the evidence made by the Tribunal and the finding recorded by the Tribunal needs no interference. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP