Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 40 of 2006
Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Nisha Soam & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Birla,Komal Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.Tiwari
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 11550 of 2006.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 23 days.
I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.
The cause shown in the affidavit for filing the appeal beyond time is bona-fide.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time.
The Delay Condonation Application No. 11550 of 2006 is allowed.
Order on Appeal The appellant-insurance company has challenged the award dated 20.9.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Meerut, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,30,888/- along-with 6% interest as compensation to the claimants-respondents.
The claim petition was instituted by the dependents of one Chandrahas who died in an accident on 11.11.2002. It is stated that Chandrahas was travelling on Indica Car No. D.L.4CM 6816 from Haridwar to Meerut and the driver of the Indica Car while taking over the tractor had dashed with Tractor No.
U.R.P. 7809. In the said accident Chandrahas suffered injuries and died. It was further stated that the deceased was D.G.C. Criminal and was earning Rs.1,05,080/- per annum.
Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to negligence of driver of Indica Car is illegal and against the record. He submits that the deceased was D.G.C. Criminal and the police under influence submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the Indica Car.
In view of the aforesaid fact, he submits that the finding of the Tribunal on the basis of charge-sheet and the other evidence brought on record that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of Indica Car is not sustainable. He further contends that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side inasmuch as, the deceased was D.G.C. Criminal and the term of D.G.C. Criminal was only of three years. Thus, after three years the income of the deceased would not be same as has been stated in the claim petition.
I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellant.
The Tribunal in deciding the issue with regard to negligence of driver of Indica Car has relied upon the charge-sheet filed by the police and also the statement of an eye witness of the accident namely PW-2 Krishna Pehal. The appellant did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of eye witness PW-2 of the accident and in the absence of any rebuttal to the testimony of PW-2 by the appellant, the veracity of testimony of PW-2 cannot be doubted. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in relying upon the testimony of PW-2 in holding the negligence of the driver of Indica Car in the accident. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence being a finding of fact is not liable to be interfered in appeal.
So far as the contention in respect of quantification of compensation is concerned it is not disputed by the appellant is that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,08,080/-, and for the purposes of computing the compensation, the income on the date of the accident has to be considered for the purpose of compensation. In view of the said fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the contention raised by the appellant is misconceived.
For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant, if not remitted, shall be remitted to the Tribunal within four weeks.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018/Ishan