JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] Since all the three appeals relate to the same accident and similar controversy is involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. A.O. No. 298/2008 is directed against the judgment and award dated 29-4-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in claim petition No. 219 of 2006, whereby the claim petition was allowed partly and the opposite party No.1 Haji Julfikar, owner of the offending jeep was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,240/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 28-8-2006 to actual date of payment. 3. A.O. No. 299/2008 is directed against the judgment and award dated 29-4-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar in claim petition No. 220 of 2006, whereby the claim petition was allowed partly and the opposite party No.1 Haji Julfikar, owner of the offending jeep was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 74,400/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 28-8-2006 to actual date of payment. 4. A.O. No. 306/2008 is directed against the judgment and award dated 29-4-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar in claim petition No. 218 of 2006, whereby the claim petition was allowed partly and the opposite party No.1 Haji Julfikar, owner of the offending jeep was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,600/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 28-8-2006 to actual date of payment. 5. The facts of the cases, in short, are that the claimants/appellants are injured persons. Claimants Km. Sagun and Kum. Rimjhim are daughters of Anil Kumar Sharma and claimant Reema Sharma. On 25-6-2006, they were returning to their home from Haridwar riding in Jeep bearing registration No. U.A. 06/E-583 3. 5. The facts of the cases, in short, are that the claimants/appellants are injured persons. Claimants Km. Sagun and Kum. Rimjhim are daughters of Anil Kumar Sharma and claimant Reema Sharma. On 25-6-2006, they were returning to their home from Haridwar riding in Jeep bearing registration No. U.A. 06/E-583 3. The driver of the jeep was driving the jeep in high speed and at about 9.00 p.m. on Shyampur Haridwar motor road, the driver of the jeep, looking an elephant coming towards the road applied the brake of the jeep due to which the jeep over-turned, due to which all the persons sitting in the jeep sustained grievous injuries. After the accident all the claimants were brought to Jolly Grant Hospital, where they got medical treatment. 6. The claimants filed claim petitions against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending jeep, i.e. National Insurance Company for compensation. 7. In all the claim petitions the owner/opposite party No.1 filed W.S. and admitted the accident. However, it was alleged that the driver had driving license, which was valid for the period 14.3.2003 to 6.4.2008. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company and the liability to pay the compensation is upon the insurance company. It is further alleged that the claimants Km. Sagun and Km. Rimjhim are minors and they are dependents upon their parents. It is further alleged in the W.S. that the claimants sustained minor injuries in the accident. If there is any liability to pay the compensation that is upon the insurer. 8. The Opposite party No.2, National Insurance company also contested the claim petitions and denied the contents of the petitions. It was alleged in the W.S. that the driver of the jeep was not having valid driving license, therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation. It was further alleged that the claimants did not sustain grievous injuries and they have claimed exaggerated compensation. 9. The Opposite party No.3, driver of the jeep also filed his W.S. and denied the contents of claim petitions. He alleged in the W.S. that he was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed and suddenly an elephant came on the road in front of the jeep and in order to save the elephant he lost his control over the vehicle and when he applied the brake of the jeep, it overturned. He alleged in the W.S. that he was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed and suddenly an elephant came on the road in front of the jeep and in order to save the elephant he lost his control over the vehicle and when he applied the brake of the jeep, it overturned. He has no negligence in the accident. At the time of accident the vehicle had valid insurance cover and the liability to pay the compensation is upon the insurance company. 10. The learned Tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed issues in all the claim petitions. 11. In all the three claim petitions, P.W. 1 Anil Kumar Sharma and P.W.2 Mahesh Sharma were examined and they also filed documentary evidence in respect of their medical treatment. The opposite parties Haji Julfikar owner of the jeep has been examined as D.W.1, and driver Wajid Ali has been examined as D.W.2. The National Insurance Company also examined Pan Singh Rawat Senior Assistant R.T.O. office Haldwani as D.W.3. The Insurance Company also filed photocopy of driving license and survey report. 12. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence of parties came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. On the point of driving license of the driver, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driving license was valid during the period 14.3.2000 to 13.3.2003. Thereafter the driving license was renewed from 27.12.2006 to 26.12.2009 and during the period 13.3.2003 to 26.12.2006 it was not renewed. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle did not file insurance cover note in order to show that the vehicle was having valid insurance cover. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation was fixed on the owner of the jeep and accordingly passed the awards. 13. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimants/appellants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced. 15. In A.O. No. 298/2008, the claimant/injured is Km. Rimjhim. She was 8 years of age at the time of accident and was a student. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced. 15. In A.O. No. 298/2008, the claimant/injured is Km. Rimjhim. She was 8 years of age at the time of accident and was a student. The injured was treated in Jolly Grant Hospital Dehradun. P.W.2, Mahesh Sharma, is Public Relation Officer of the Jolly Grant Hospital. He has deposed that Km. Rimjhim remained admitted in the Hospital from 26.6.2006 to 6.7.2006. The claimant has filed medical bills and prescription for her treatment and the total amount of these bills come to Rs. 13,125.98. Out of this amount, there is endorsement that a sum of Rs. 187/- was returned to the patient and the bills for a sum of Rs. 70 1/- were produced unsigned therefore, the tribunal has observed the claimant is not entitled to get the said amounts and deducted the same from the sum of Rs. 13,125.98 and awarded a sum of Rs. 13125- (-) Rs. (Rs.888/-)= Rs. 12240/- under the head of medical expenses and also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony and physical pain. The total amount of Rs. 13,240/- has been awarded. The tribunal also observed that the injuries on the person of Km. Rimjhim were not grievous in nature. Thus, in my view that tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable amount to the claimant Km. Rimjhim. 17. In A.O. No. 299/2008, the injured/claimant is Smt. Reema Sharma. At the time of accident she was 32 years of age. According to the claimant she had got fracture in her leg and she was unable to move. Witness Mahesh Sharma, P.R.O. of the Hospital has deposed that Smt. Reema Sharma remained admitted in Hospital during the period 26.6.2006 to 17.7.2006. He has further deposed that besides the expenses of purchase of medicines, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- were the expenses of Hospital. He further deposed that after discharge the patient had visited the Hospital four to five times and on every visit a sum of Rs. 20/- were taken from the patient. The claimant has filed the bill to the tune of Rs. 16,570/- and in it a sum of Rs. 6000/- was mentioned as expenses of fracture soft-framer/inter calendar/super calendar/ calendar. He further deposed that after discharge the patient had visited the Hospital four to five times and on every visit a sum of Rs. 20/- were taken from the patient. The claimant has filed the bill to the tune of Rs. 16,570/- and in it a sum of Rs. 6000/- was mentioned as expenses of fracture soft-framer/inter calendar/super calendar/ calendar. Beside this, claimants also filed a number of medical bills, the total of which comes to Rs. 64,388/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 64,400/- towards medical expenses. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and physical pain. Thus the total amount of compensation of Rs. 74,400/- has been awarded. The claimant has no case of any disability. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial is a just and reasonable amount. 18. In A.O. No. 218/2006, the claimant/injured is Km. Shagun. She was aged 15 years and was studying in 11th class. She remained admitted in the Hospital during the period 26.6.2006 to 17.7.2006. The learned Tribunal after considering the various medical bills submitted on behalf of the claimant came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 19,600/- towards medical expenses. The tribunal also observed that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not serious in nature. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards mental agony and physical pain and thus total amount of Rs. 21,600/- was awarded. The tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount of compensation. 19. I do not find any ground that the compensations awarded by the tribunal to the claimants is liable to be enhanced. 20. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum and the same is also a reasonable rate. 21. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 22. All the appeals are dismissed and the impugned awards passed by the Tribunal are affirmed. 23. Let a copy of this order be placed in each of the appeals.