Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the insurer of truck, bearing registration no.UP-13-S-1132 against the order of Tribunal dated 08.07.2014, by which Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.21,24,552/- towards compensation.
Brief facts as stated in the impugned order are that on 14.02.2009 when the deceased, Kashi Nath Niboriya was going on foot at G.T.Road, near Naya Gaon Bijli Ghar, the offending vehicle, bearing registration no.UP-13-S-1132 hit the deceased, causing grievous injuries, resulting in his death. The deceased was a permanent employee of the State Government in Trade Tax Department. Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident has been caused on account of the negligence of the offending vehicle. Tribunal, having regard to the salary of the deceased and the age, has awarded the compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first information was lodged against the unknown vehicle. Subsequently, vehicle has been implanted. He further submitted that the same vehicle was also involved in the accident, occurred on 03.09.2010, in which M.A.C. No.51 of 2011 was filed. The driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear. Therefore, the involvement of the said vehicle is doubtful. He further submitted that the accident took place prior to the commencement of Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, which came into force on 26.09.2011 and, therefore, the compensation awarded towards future prospect is not unjustified.
We do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because in the first information report, the number of vehicle was not given but subsequently, the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was provided to the police authorities and on the investigation it was found that the said vehicle was involved in the accident, the claim of the claimants can not be rejected. Further we are of the view that in case, if the owner or driver of the vehicle did not appear, the claim of the claimants can not be refused. Tribunal on the basis of the eye-witness and the material on record has arrived to the conclusion that the accident has been caused by said vehicle, bearing registration no.UP-13-S-1132. The findings of the Tribunal are findings of fact.
So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the said vehicle was also involved in the accident held on 03.09.2010, which shows that the said vehicle has been implanted only to get the compensation is concerned, it can not be accepted. In the present case, the accident held on 14.02.2009, the driver of the vehicle was Dhannu Khan, who was also the owner of the vehicle while subsequently, accident took place on 03.09.2010, after one and half years, wherein the driver of the vehicle was Rajesh Kumar, son of Om Prakash Sharma The possibility of the accident, which occurred subsequently by the same vehicle, can not be over-ruled. In the absence of any material to the contrary that the said vehicle has been subsequently, implanted to get the compensation, can not be accepted.
We are informed that a racket is going on to make a false case to get the compensation. Some of the travel agent and owner of the vehicle offers for implanting their vehicle for monetary gain. We are of the view that possibility of such situation can not be overruled but same requires strict proof. However, Court should be cautious dealing with such situation in case, if opposite party raises such plea and should make deep investigation.
So far as future prospect is concerned, we are of the view that since the deceased was a permanent Government employee, aged about 36 years, therefore, in accordance to law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, reported in 2009(2) TAC, 677, which has been subsequently approved by Three Judges Bench in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 (3) TAC, 697, fifty percent future prospect has rightly been awarded. The aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court relates to the period prior to the amendment. Therefore, on the basis of the Court made law, compensation awarded towards future prospect by the Tribunal, can not be said to be unjustified.
In view of the above, we do not find any error in the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Office is directed to remit back the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within a period of four weeks.
Order Date :- 18.9.2014 R./