Uttarakhand High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Summani Devi And Others on 17 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
AO No. 476 of 2011
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
.................Defendant/Appellant
-versus-
Smt. Summani Devi and others
..........Claimants/Respondents
Date of hearing and Judgement: 17.12.2021
Advocates appeared in the case:-
For Appellant : Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, learned counsel for
the appellant/Insurance Company.
For Respondents :
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
1. Heard D.C.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Kahsipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in
Motor Accident Case No. 229 of 2006, Smt. Summani
Devi & another vs. Amit Verma and another.
3. The appellant has prayed in this appeal to set aside
the judgement/order dated 20.08.2011 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District
Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Motor Accident Case No. 229 of 2006, Smt. Summani
Devi & another vs. Amit Verma & another.
4. A Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed by the
claimants before the learned Tribunal bearing case
No.229 of 2006 and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rs.
10,00,000/- under Section 166 was claimed. It is
stated in the claim petition that on 01.08.2006, Mr.
Umrao Singh, husband of claimant no.1 and father of
the claimant no. 2 was hit by a Motorcycle bearing
no. U.A.06E/8651 due to which Mr. Umrao Singh
died, at the time of accident. He was aged about 55
years and his income was Rs. 10,000/- per month
and for the accident claimant no.2 lodged an FIR
against the driver of the Motorcycle. Thereafter, the
claim petition was finally heard and decided vide
judgement and order dated 20.08.2021 by the
learned Claim Tribunal and awarded Rs. 2,31,000/-
along with 7% interest.
5. Such award has been challenged by the Insurance
Company on two grounds. Firstly, it has been
submitted that the learned Judge, Presiding the
Tribunal should not have relied upon the Final Report
only on the ground that a protest petition has been
filed by the informant of the case and though the
post-mortem report reveals that the age of the
deceased is 65 years, his age should not have been
taken to be 60 years and to adopt the multiplier of 9
for calculation the compensation to be awarded.
6. This Court after consideration of this matter on
record shows that the Police Report is not a
conclusive document even in a case under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the calculation of
compensation or fixing of liability on any person. The
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to come to a different
conclusion. It is not bound by the report prepared by
the Investigating Agency. Thus, in this case even
though the Investigating Agency has come to the
conclusion that there was no rash and negligent act
on the part of the Driver of the vehicle, in view of the
protest petition filed by the appellant it was proper
on the part of the Tribunal to come to a different
conclusion based on evidences placed before it. So,
the first contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant Mr. Rawat does not appear to be very
much tenable and is not accepted.
7. As far as the second ground is concerned, the learned
Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the
claimant pleaded that the deceased was 55 years old
at the time of his death, whereas in the post-mortem
the report reveals that his age was 65 at the time of
the post-mortem. The age of his elder son was 30
years and the age of his wife was 52 years as per the
claim application. No evidence has been led on behalf
of the opposite parties in the petition before us
regarding the age of the deceased. In such situation,
the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased to
be 60 years in view of the fact that there is no clear
evidence from the side of any parties and it could
have been anywhere between 55 to 65 years. The
learned Tribunal has come to a proper conclusion
that the age of the deceased should be considered to
be 60 years in view of the fact that there is no clear
evidence from the side of any parties and it could
have been anywhere between 55 to 65 years. The
learned Tribunal has come to a proper conclusion
that his age should be considered to be 60 years at
the time of the accident and this Court really does
not consider and does not see any very compelling
and cogent reasons to disturb this very aspect of the
case, specially after so many years the same having
been passed by the Tribunal.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the entire amount of compensation has
already been deposited in the Tribunal by the
appellant in pursuance of the orders passed by this
Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that at this
stage, the appeal should not be allowed, especially
when the amount is not very large.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
10. The Trial Court Record be returned.
11. The amount already deposited along with the accrued
interest and the statutory deposit with its interest,
which shall be forthwith remitted to the learned
Tribunal by the Registry, be released in favour of the
claimant on proper identification.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
KKS
