Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 31 of 2001
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Alld
Respondent :- Mohd. Sayeed And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.
2. The insurance company has felt aggrieved by judgment and award dated 24.10.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 627 of 1997 (Mohd. Sayeed Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh and others) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum.
3. The factual data is not in dispute that the accident had taken place on 28.08.1997 at about 3 p.m. deceased was hit by the vehicle No. U.P. 72A/5295 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and causing his death.
4. It is submitted by Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant that the age of the deceased was 7 years at the time of accident and the claimant could not be said to be dependent on the deceased and, therefore, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- could not have been awarded by the Tribunal. This submission of the learned Advocate cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court relied by the Tribunal and the judgment of this Court the Tribunal has adopted the mulitplier method and has deducted the amount though 1/3rd instead of 1/2 nothing has been awarded under the head of future prospects, nothing has been added to the amount of filalial consortium.
5. The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court while granting compensation hence the compensation is just and adequate this will not permit me to upturn the order of the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded and is more of what can be said to be just compensation.
6. The next submission is that the driver of the bus was not having proper driving licence and minibus cannot be said to be a light motor vehicle. I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant as it is very clear that laden weight determines the type of vehicle, the licence dated 15.12.1995 is valid till 14.12.2015 and accident occurred during this time. The laden weight of the minibus was 3150 kg. and, therefore, even if I consider the decision of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd decided on 2.09.1999 and recent judgement of Apex Court in Madhav dev, I cannot not accept the submission of Sri Srivistava, learned counsel for appellant that the driver did not have licence to drive the minibus.
7. Both the submissions fail and appeal is dismissed. The interim relief shall stands vacated. Though notices have been sent, none has remained present for claimant or owner.
8. This Court is thankful to Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant for getting appeal of the year 2001 disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Shubhankar