Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 553 of 2018 Appellant :- R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawah And Another Respondent :- Smt. Choti Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- M.M.Sahai
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 8.12.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.180 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the heirs of the deceased who died out of the vehicular accident.
2. The first ground of appeal pales into insignificance as it was a claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Despite that the Tribunal has raised and gone to decide issue of negligence and decide all the issues.
3. The Tribunal therefore, in absence of any evidence to the contrary the death having taken place on the spot, it cannot be said that Suraj Pal, driver of the appellant had slowed down the vehicle and or his vehicle was not involved in the accident. The incident occurred when the deceased was standing near the glass factory. PW 1, 2 and 3 have corroborated the accident having taken place. The oral testimony of the driver and the conductor was such that they blamed the police in implicating them in the said accident though no accident had taken place by their vehicle. The testimony has not found to be trustworthy. The question of contributory negligence does not arise and I concur with the finding of fact of the Tribunal.
3. As far as the next ground about compensation and interest are concerned, they are now covered by the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- for the death of sole bread winner cannot said to be excessive. The Tribunal has not given any amount under the head of future prospects and under the head of non pecuniary damages. Hence, this ground cannot be accepted.
4. The rate of interest which has been given at the rate of 12% should have been 9%, but looking to the factual scenario, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant rate of interest and hence the same is upheld.
5. Hence, this appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 DKS