Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Kumar .....Appellant/ vs Surjeet Singh And Two Others on 2 August, 2024
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
02nd AUGUST, 2024
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 466 of 2011
Rajendra Kumar .....Appellant/Claimant
Versus
Surjeet Singh and two Others .....Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Sharma,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Pande,
No.3-Insurance Company Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
claimant to enhance the amount awarded by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/Ist
F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, at Rudrapur in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.384 of 2009.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant-claimant was
going to his house on his motorcycle bearing Registration
No.UK06J-7794 at around 10:00 a.m. on 22.11.2009 when a
car bearing Registration No.UK06K-2111 came and dashed
against his motorcycle, as a result, he received grievous
injuries. His hand and leg were fractured in the said incident.
He was admitted to Phutela Hospital, Rudrapur. The
registered owner of the said car was the respondent no.1
and the respondent no.2 was driving the said car at the time
of the incident. The claimant has filed the prescription and
medical bills, issued by Phutela Hospital, Rudrapur. The
Tribunal vide Award dated 28.07.2011 directed the
respondent no.3-Insurance Company to pay Rs.17,000/-
(Rupees Seventeen Thousand) as compensation and 8%
simple interest per annum from the date of filing the petition
till its actual payment.
3. The Tribunal has not accepted the amount of
medical bills i.e. 80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) on the
ground that the doctor has not been examined to prove the
said bills. The Insurance Company has not challenged the
Award.
4. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the
appellant had stated on 31.07.2024 that the appellant has
filed the present appeal to recover the amount of
Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) towards medical bills.
5. Heard Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for
appellant and Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for
respondent no.3-Insurance Company.
6. Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate, for respondent
no.3-Insurance Company has argued that the appellant has
not examined the doctor to prove the medical bills.
Therefore, he is not entitled to recover the amount of the
alleged medical bills.
7. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, has placed reliance
on the judgment dated 05.10.2021 of the coordinate Bench
of this Court, passed in Appeal From Order No.598 of 2014
"National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jamuna
Devi and Others".
8. The appellant-claimant has examined Shivcharan
Agnihotri (PW2), the administrator of Phutela Hospital. He
has deposed that Rajendra Kumar was brought to the said
hospital on 22.11.2009. There was a fracture in his right leg
and right hand. He was admitted in the said hospital till
24.11.2009 and his treatment continued for about one and a
half month. He (Shivcharan Agnihotri, PW2) had brought
with him the original record of the appellant's treatment.
Seeing the said original record, he stated that the
prescription and bills have the signature of Dr. Paramjeet
Singh and the discharge slip has the signature of Dr. Ravi
Phutela of the said hospital.
9. The Insurance Company was granted an
opportunity by the Tribunal to cross-examine this witness,
but, the Insurance Company has not cross-examined this
witness.
10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Jamuna Devi and Others (Supra), the coordinate Bench
of this Court has held ".....if the claimants places reliance on
the medical prescriptions of the documents in order to
establish the fact of expenditure which had been incurred for
undertaking the treatment, it is not required that the Doctor
has to be necessarily produced in the witness box, to prove
those documents......".
11. There is no dispute about the incident. The
Insurance Company has not challenged the Award. The
proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is a summary proceeding, therefore, strict proof is not
required to prove the claim.
12. Though, the Doctor has not been examined by the
appellant-claimant but in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the medical bills cannot be ignored. On perusal
of the record, it is clear that besides the aforesaid amount of
compensation, the appellant-claimant is also entitled to get
Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand). Therefore, the
respondent no.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) along with an interest
at 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its
actual payment before the Tribunal within four weeks' from
today.
13. The present Appeal (AO No.466 of 2011) is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
__________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 02nd August, 2024
Neha
