B.C. Kandpal, J.
1. Both these appeals arise out of same accident and the facts of both the cases are similar, therefore, both these appeals are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I am mentioning the facts of Appeal No. 445 of 2004.
2. Appeal No. 445 of 2004 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 20.8.2004 passed by the M.A.C.T./ District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000, Prahalad Giri Goswami v. Arora Transport Co., whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000 in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of filing the claim application against United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Appeal No. 283 of 2005 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.8.2004 passed by the M.A.C.T./District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000, Prahalad Giri Goswami v. Arora Transport Co., whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the claimant-appellant along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of filing the claim application against United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.4.1999 at about 6.30 a.m. a Tata 407 truck No. DL 3L-B 3190 was coming from Delhi met with an accident, 6 km from Gajrola. In the said accident Rohit Giri (5 years) son of Prahalad Giri died on the spot and the appellant Prahalad Giri sustained injuries. In this way, appellants-claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation.
5. Arora Transport Co. as well as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing their written statement while owner of the truck Taranjeet Singh did not file any written statement in spite of sufficient service.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000 in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000 and Rs. 10,000 in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 20.8.2004.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Claims Tribunal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant, filed this petition for setting aside the award passed in M.A.C.C. No. 55 of 2000 and appellant, Prahalad filed this appeal for enhancement of the award passed in M.A.C.C. No. 54 of 2000.
8. Heard Mr. Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 3, Mr. Amish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant and perused the record.
9. Perusal of the record shows that the paper No. 7C is the first information report, which reveals that the driver of the truck himself admitted this fact that at the time of the accident, he was driving the truck in a very rash and negligent manner. It has further alleged that his wife, children and mother were sitting inside the truck and the accident occurred due to his own mistake in which his son Rohit Giri died on the spot. So the point relating to the rashness and negligence was decided by the Claims Tribunal.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted before the court that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive. The Tribunal has committed error while fixing the liability upon insurance company as the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence.
11. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company, as it is clear from paper No. 10C that the vehicle in question was insured between 19.4.1999 and 18.4.2000, therefore, the liability to pay compensation lies upon the insurance company. Perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment, further reveals that the driver of the vehicle did not produce the copy/original driving licence. The Tribunal on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh MANU/SC/0021/2004 : AIR2004SC1531 , gave the recoverable right to the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle in question. As far as calculation of amount is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the fact and circumstances of the case awarded the amount of compensation. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 5 years only and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 80,000 in lump sum to the claimants.
12. In view of the above discussion, Appeal No. 445 of 2004 is dismissed.
13. In the Appeal No. 283 of 2005, Mr. Amish Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted before the court that the Claims Tribunal has committed error while awarding the amount of compensation under the head of medical treatment. He has further submitted that the claimant has incurred about Rs. 30,000 expenses on his medical treatment.
14. Having considering the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the entire documents available before me, I come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 10,000 towards medical treatment. Perusal of the record reveals that the treatment of the appellant was done in Military Hospital, free of cost and with regard to the medicines, he has not produced any bill pertaining to his treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while awarding the amount of compensation to the claimant-appellant. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer with any illegality. I do not find any ground to interfere in the amount of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified.
15. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 283 of 2005 is also dismissed.
16. The statutory amount filed by the appellant insurance company in Appeal No. 445 of 2005 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.
Let the copy of this judgment be placed in Appeal No. 283 of 2005.