Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Aasha Devi & Others on 3 October, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1831 of 2005
Appellant :- United India Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Smt. Aasha Devi & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Vashishtha Tiwari
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
(Delivered Oral by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent nos.1 to 4.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Deoria/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria awarding Rs.6,76,260/- along with 6% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents nos.1 to 4.
The Claim Petition has been filed on the ground that on 02.03.2002 at about 3.00 p.m. the deceased Sahjanand Pandey was going on the Motor-cycle and was hit by Truck No.MP-9-KB/5908. The dependent of the deceased, claimants/respondent nos.1 to 4 instituted the Claim Petition claiming the compensation of Rs.29.82 lakhs.
On the issue of occurrence of alleged accident the Court below recorded the findings after appreciating evidence on record that the accident had taken place by Truck No.MP-9-KB/5908. The occurrence of the accident is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.
The first submission which has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On this issue he has placed reliance upon the site plan of the accident, which is Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application.
Having perused the site plan of the accident we find that the Truck was coming from West to East and the Motor-cycle of the deceased was coming from a side lane and it dashed with the Truck at Point "A" shown in the site plan. Perusal of the site plan indicates that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the Truck which was further proved by the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 4 by producing the eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1, Virendra Mishra who has stated that the Truck was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the Motor-cycle. The evidence of PW-2 was further corroborated by the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the Truck. The evidence led by the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 4 namely charge-sheet and the other documentary evidence and the statement of PW-1 was not rebutted by the appellant by producing any witness. Thus in view of the aforesaid fact findings on the issue with regard to negligence of the driver of the Truck is a finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered in appeal in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Social Welfare Department and was getting salary of Rs.5,100/- per month. The Tribunal after deducting Rs.530/-, which was deducted from the salary of deceased, held the income of deceased at Rs.5,170/- per month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 as per age of the deceased which was 36 years. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,76,260/- as compensation. We do not find any infirmity in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and is also not liable to be interfered with.
For the reasons given above the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.10.2017
R./
