JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.D. Tiwari holding brief of Mr. Sabhapati Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1, Mr. Raj Nath Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 (driver) and Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and perused the record.
2. This appeal has been filed by owner of offending vehicle against the judgment and award dated 17th July, 1997 passed by the District Judge/M.A.C.T., Basti in claim petition No. 182 of 1995. whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition partly for recovery of Rs. 15,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
3. A cross-objection has also been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the accident took place on 20th August, 1995 at about 12.30 p.m. when claimant Jan Mohammad, a minor boy was going to market for making some purchases the driver of the jeep No. a M.M.V. 6972 dashed against the boy and as a result of accident, claimant fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
5. So far as the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is concerned, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has frankly admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it on the date of accident and insurance policy was found to be valid after verification. Further, the driving licence of the driver of vehicle was found to be valid on the date of accident. He, therefore, frankly admitted the liability of the Company for payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent. He is further ready and willing to reimburse the owner of the vehicle provided the amount of compensation has been deposited by the appellant in the Tribunal.
6. So far as cross-objection is concerned, I find after perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 that there were two injuries only out of which one was abraded contusion on the left side efface and claimant remained hospitalized in the District Hospital for one week. The Tribunal on the basis of oral and the documentary evidence filed by the claimant regarding treatment assessed the expenses on treatment at Rs. 5,000. It further assessed a compensation of Rs. 4 10,000 for pain and suffering. I find that claimant's mother was examined who disclosed that her son was taken to Lucknow in connection with better treatment. The lady must have spent about Rs. 1,500 in going to Lucknow and coming back. Since she failed to file x-ray report or any other report showing tests which were carried out or cash memo, etc. to indicate expenses on purchase of medicines, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in calculating the e compensation.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion, I hold that the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle has to be allowed and order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. I further hold that claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 16,500 as compensation from the Insurance Company along with f interest as allowed by the Tribunal. I order accordingly:
(1) The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is allowed in part and it is ordered that the amount of compensation along with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant and order of the Tribunal stands modified to this extent:
(2) The cross-objection filed by the claimant is also partly allowed. The claimant-respondent is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 16,500 as compensation along with interest from the Insurance Company (3) The amount already paid/withdrawn by the claimant shall be h adjusted.
(4) The claimant may withdraw the amount deposited before the Tribunal/kept in the form of fixed deposit receipt also.
(5) The Insurance Company shall make payment of entire amount to the owner/claimant as ordered above within a period of two months from today.