HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the

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 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 4 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 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 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 5 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. Mamta (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

20.06.2025 6 7