2025:UHC:5311 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 106 of 2020 20 June, 2025 Arun Kumar ……….Appellant Versus Naushad and others ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 39 days in filing the present appeal. 2. A delay condonation application along with the affidavit of the appellant has been filed to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. 3. The delay condonation application has not been opposed by learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Cause shown is found sufficient. The delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 2222 of 2020) is accordingly allowed. 5. Heard on the appeal from order. 6. Present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident 2025:UHC:5311 2 Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C. Case No. 162 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and awarded a sum of ₹5,57,000/- against respondent no.2 – Insurance Company. 7. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2018, at around 12:30 PM, the appellant (claimant) was travelling on motorcycle no. UK17F 9931 from Village Mirja Teela, P.S. Sikhera, Muzaffarnagar to his home at Tanda Bhikkamur, P.S. Laksar along with his relative Chatar Singh and his wife who were on another motorcycle bearing no. UK08R 5902. When they reached near Nirgajani Power House, Kanwar Marg, a Mahindra Pickup bearing registration no. UP12 AT 8556 coming from the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorcycles. The appellant sustained serious injuries and was initially taken to Government Hospital, Muzaffarnagar, and later referred to Jagdamba Super Specialty Hospital, Meerut. It was claimed that ₹10,00,000/- was incurred in medical expenses and ₹5,00,000/- would be required for future treatment. A total compensation of ₹67,40,000/- was claimed. 8. Respondents no.1 and 3 (driver and owner) jointly filed their written statement 2025:UHC:5311 3 denying most of the allegations and asserted that no accident occurred on 14.11.2018 as alleged. They also claimed that the vehicle was being driven cautiously and had valid documents, and if any liability arises, the Insurance Company would be liable. 9. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company also filed its written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid documents and the claimant himself was also not in possession of valid driving license and vehicle documents. 10. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred on 14.11.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Pickup (UP12 AT 8556), resulting in injuries to the appellant? ii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle held valid and effective documents (license, insurance, fitness, etc.) at the time of accident? iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 11. The appellant/claimant led 2025:UHC:5311 4 documentary and oral evidence including FIR, medical records, discharge summary, bills, and testimony of PW1 – Arun Kumar and PW2 – Raham Illahi (Record Keeper at Jagdamba Super Specialty Hospital). 12. Respondents filed documentary evidence such as registration certificate, insurance, driving license, fitness certificate, and pollution certificate of the vehicle. 13. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award holding the Insurance Company liable. 14. On Issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Pickup (UP12 AT 8556) and decided the issue in favour of the claimant. 15. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident and decided the issue against the respondent no.2. 16. On Issue No. 3, the Tribunal noted that PW2 proved the hospital bill (Paper No. 9C/25) showing ₹5,27,000/- incurred for treatment. Although medicine bills were also filed (Paper Nos. 9C/3 to 9C/23), the Tribunal found that PW2 was not associated with the medical store 2025:UHC:5311 5 and no witness from the medical store or prescribing doctor was examined. Thus, medicine bills remained unproven. Hence, only ₹5,27,000/- was allowed towards medical expenses. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence regarding medicine bills and that the appellant sustained serious injuries requiring prolonged treatment. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 reiterated that the appellant failed to prove all medical bills and that the offending vehicle’s documents were not in order. It was also contended that the claimant did not prove his income or employment and failed to produce a disability certificate, and therefore was not entitled to future loss of income. 19. The Tribunal had noted that although the claimant claimed to be earning ₹20,000/- per month as a mason (Rajmistri), but, no proof or witness (like his contractor) was produced in this regard. Moreover, there was no disability certificate submitted to prove permanent disability affecting his earning capacity. Thus, ₹10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. 20. After examining the award, it is evident that the Tribunal thoroughly considered the 2025:UHC:5311 6 evidence, including medical bills, testimonies, and employment/income claims. Since medicine bills remained unsubstantiated and permanent disability was not proved, the Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record and evidence again. 22. The learned Tribunal rightly held that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the bills and vouchers by way of legal evidence, and therefore, correctly awarded compensation only for the bills duly proved by PW2 – Raham Illahi, the Record Keeper at Jagdamba Super Specialty Hospital. The Tribunal was also justified in not awarding any compensation for the injury allegedly sustained by the appellant/claimant, as no permanent disability certificate was placed on record. 23. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 24. No order as to costs. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.06.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5311 7