Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 83 of 2012 Appellant :- Smt. Bitta Khatoon And Others And Another Respondent :- Rohit Kumar Srivastava And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Hisham Qadeer,M.A. Qadeer Counsel for Respondent :- Bhavesh,Bhavesh Rai
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This first appeal from order has been preferred by the claimants/appellants who are widow, sons, daughters and minor daughters of deceased Shamshad Ali against the judgement and award dated 29.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in which the M.A.C.P. No. 718 of 2006 was filed by the claimants/appellants claiming a sum of Rs. 30,90,000/- as compensation for the death of Shamshad Ali in an accident which had taken place on 30.06.2006 on G.T. Road at about 9 a.m. on account of overturning of a Vikram Tempo bearing registration no. U.P.-78-AT-4332 which was going from Barua Kala to Chaubeypur due to rash and negligent driving by its driver in which the deceased was travelling as a passenger.
The claimants/appellants filed the aforesaid claim petition inter-alia alleging that the deceased who at the time of his death was aged about 40 years, was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by carrying a private business and as such the respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,15,000/- as compensation to them for the death of the deceased.
Respondent no. 1, Rohit Kumar Srivastava, the owner of the offending vehicle Vikram Tempo contested the claim petition by filing a written statement denying that any such accident in which the deceased had allegedly died, had taken place and in case it was found that the deceased had died in any such accident as alleged in the claim petition, in that event, the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants/appellants was that of respondent no. 2, The National Insurance Company Ltd. with which the offending Vikram Tempo was duly insured and the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of the so-called alleged accident.
Respondent no. 2, The National Insurance Company Ltd. also filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also the fact that the deceased had died due to injuries received by him in an accident which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Vikram Tempo, hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle. The respondent no. 2 also denied that the offending vehicle was involved in any such accident.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as six issues. The claimants/appellants in order to prove their case pleaded by them in the claim petition examined P.W.1 Mahmood Ali, P.W.2 Jumman Ali and P.W.3 Mushtaq Ali and also filed documentary evidence consisting of photostat copy of the F.I.R., bills, vouchers, prescriptions, the order granting bail to Saleem Ahmad, driver of the offending Vikram Tempo, case diary and the charge-sheet submitted in criminal case namely Case Crime No. 112 of 2006 u/s 279, 337, 338 I.P.C., P.S.- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar pertaining to the accident in question. The respondent no. 2 did not adduce any oral evidence. The respondent no. 2 however, filed photostat copy of list no. 133 ग to form no. 54 including the copy of family register and the original insurance copy.
The Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced and scrutinizing the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition by the impugned judgement and order. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence adduced by the claimants/appellants came to the conclusion that the claimants/appellants had failed to prove that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries received in the accident which had taken place on 30.06.2006 at 9 a.m. on G.T. Road near Barua Kala, P.S.- Chaubeypur due to rash and negligent driving of Vikram Tempo bearing registration no. U.P.-78-AT-4332 by its driver in which he was travelling as a passenger.
The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact which is based upon a critical scrutiny and threadbare evaluation of the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants have failed to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding suffers from any illegality, legal infirmity or is perverse.
In our opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any impropriety or legality in dismissing the claim petition.
Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.3.2018 KS