Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39956 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1146 of 2012 Appellant :- Girish Pandey Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Apar Distt.Judge Ct.No.13 Andors Counsel for Appellant :- Archana Singh Tomar,Arvind Kumar Pandey,P.K. Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Har Govind Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement in the Award dated 25.2.2012 passed in Claim Petition No.118/2005 wherein in an injury case, the M.A.C.T./ A.D.J. Court No.13, Lucknow awarded a sum of Rs.25,389/- alongwith 6% interest per annum. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is quite surprising that at the time when the claim petition was filed and the respondents had put in appearance and later, they failed to contest then the Tribunal by means of its award dated 5.11.2007 had awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,500/- alongwith 6% interest per annum. It was further urged that on an application moved by the respondent State before the Tribunal, the said award dated 5.11.2007 was recalled and thereafter when the matter was contested again, this time the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,389/- vide award dated 25.2.2012 which per se appears to have been passed without due application of judicial mind. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the appellant had furnished all the requisite documents relating to his treatment including the disability, yet they have not been appropriately considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award, hence the award deserves to be modified by granting higher compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the petitioner had received grievous injury and had fractured his leg. He remained in hospital where a surgery was done, however, all these documents and facts have not been considered by the Tribunal resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice. 6. The Add. C.S.C has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation since no material document was filed by the appellant relating to the alleged injuries. The contention that the appellant suffered a fracture and he had to undergo a surgery in a hospital is not verified nor proved. The documents as submitted by the appellant are primarily the receipts for the purchase of medicines which have been considered by the Tribunal. 7. The appellant had filed certain photographs to indicate his condition while he was in hospital but that also cannot be considered in absence of any primary corroborative evidence indicating that the appellant had suffered alleged injury. In such circumstances, the award made by the Tribunal does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 9. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellant that on 5.11.2001 while the appellant was riding his Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No.UP 32 N 0199 and his father-in- law was his pillion rider and as soon as they reached Munshi Pulia Crossing, at that time the offending vehicle bearing No.UP 32 C- 4193 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the appellant as a result, the appellant received grievious injuries and he fractured his leg. It was the case of the appellant that he was admitted in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji Civil Hospital where he remained admitted from 6.11.2001 till 12.11.2001 and later he further had to be admitted in Devi Shiv Health Care Hospital in Mahanagar from 26.11.2001 till 4.12.2001. 10. It is in this context that the appellant had filed a claim petition which came to be registered as Claim Petition No.118/2005. The claim petition came to be contested and the State denied the occurrence of the accident including the fact regarding the injuries sustained by the appellant. 11. The record indicates that upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues. The Tribunal while considering issue no.1 relating to the issue of negligence returned a positive finding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing U.P. 32 C-4193 wherein the appellant who was riding his motorcycle suffered injuries. As far as the issue regarding compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took note of the various receipts by which the appellant had purchased medicines and certain other expenditure relating to his treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.15,389/- towards such expenditure. Thereafter, it added a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical trauma as well as for better diet and a total sum of Rs.25,389/- was awarded alongwith 6% interest vide award dated 25.2.2012. It is this award which is under challenge before this Court. 12. Considering the submissions of respective parties and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that insofar as the issue regarding involvement of the vehicle bearing No.UP 32 C-4193 is concerned, the Tribunal has returned a finding in favour of the appellant. It also recorded a finding that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and it caused the accident. Apparently, though the State has contested the instant appeal but the fact remains that neither the State has filed any cross appeal or any cross objection to assail any finding, hence the findings on the involvement of the vehicle, the issue of negligence as returned by the Claims Tribunal has attained finality and this court affirms the same. 13. Now, the only issue that is left is regarding compensation. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is the fact that on earlier occasions, the claim petition had been decided on 5.11.2007 (though ex parte ) but the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,500/. It is urged that the claim should not have been less than the aforesaid amount. 14. This reasonings as adopted by the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the appellant does not impress this court for the reason that the order upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant dated 5.11.2007, on an application moved by the State, it was recalled and set aside. Once the said order has been recalled and set aside, it cannot be taken as a basis nor for any reference for grant of compensation. It is also admitted to the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of recall was never assailed by the appellant. Thus, to that extent, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is turned down. 15. Examining the issue as to whether the Tribunal has made an award by providing fair and just compensation, it would reveal from the record that the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is the fact that the appellant suffered a fracture on his right leg and he had spent considerable time in the hospital where he had to undergo a surgery. Upon perusal of the record before the Tribunal where the parties had lead evidences, it would reveal that there is not a single document which would indicate that the appellant had undergone a surgery. There is no X-ray plate to indicate that the fracture had taken place. It is also not indicated as to when the surgery took place and where. There is also no explanation as to the fact that when the appellant was first admitted in Civil Hospital between 6.11.2001 to 12.11.2001 and in what circumstances, he had to be admitted once again in a private hospital namely Devi Shiv Health Care Hospital in Mahanagar between 26.11.2001 to 4.12.2001. The photographs which have been annexed and furnished does indicate that the appellant is lying on the bed with his leg fracture but that mere picture in absence of any corroborative evidence, does not inspire any confidence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant suffered injury has not been contested by the respondent, as no cross objection or cross appeal has been filed. Now the only issue that remains to be considered is the issue of quantum of compensation. 16. Having taken an overall holistic view of the matter, this Court finds that the Tribunal has already taken note of the expenses which were incurred by the appellant which are corroborated by the receipts placed on record, however the amount, as granted towards mental and physical trauma has not been appropriately considered. Apart from the basic expenses which are incurred towards the treatment which can be quantified but there are certain other ancillary expenses for which a person may not have documentary proof of obtaining receipts such as from any domestic help or an Attendant or the several rounds and check ups and follow ups for which the person is required to visit a doctor including the fact that in future, there may be certain other complications on account of accident, hence an appropriate measure should have been made in that regard which has not been done. It is in this view thereof, this Court finds that a sum of Rs.30,000/ as awarded to the appellant shall take care of this aspect of the matter. As a consequence, if this amount of Rs.30,000/ which is added to the amount already granted by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.25,389/-, the total amount receivable as compensation would now come to Rs.55,389/-. This amount shall be payable by the State respondent to the appellant alongwith 6% interest as awarded by the Tribunal within sixty days from today. Any amount already paid to the appellant, shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum. 17. Subject to the aforesaid, no other part of the award is being interfered with. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 25.2.2012 passed in Claim Petition No.118/2005 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall now be entitled to a total sum of Rs55,389/- alongwith 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of its actual payment. 19. No other order as to costs. 20. The record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench