Court No. - 16
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2575 of 2018 Appellant :- Shadab Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Pal Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the award dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Pilibhit, in MACP No.129 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Nazaqat and another whereby overall compensation amount Rs.2,17,797/- along with 7% has been directed to be given to the claimant-respondent no.1.
It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that in this case the factum of accident when it in fact was caused by the offending vehicle mini truck No.U.K. 04 - CA 0324 has not been properly proved by the claimant because both the injured as well as another person who at that point of time was driving the motorcycle No. U.P. 14 AB 5692 were not educated enough to have knowledge of number plate which disclosed the vehicle number in english alphabet and numerical style. Issue no.1 on the point of accident was wrongly decided by the Tribunal, and it cannot be accepted that the offending vehicle caused the accident. Therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse.
It has been further added that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive to the tune of Rs.2,17,797/- and liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company.
Perused the record as brought before this Court and particularly certified copy of the impugned award dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.129 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Nazaqat and another.
Bare perusal of the certified copy of the impugned award itself is indicative of fact that both the parties contested claim before the Tribunal whereupon certain specific issues - say three issues were framed by the Tribunal. Issue no.1 related to the factum of the accident whereupon after consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and particularly the fact that the offending vehicle number was spelt by the witnesses, it was prima facie found to be case established against the offending vehicle. Not only this, but there was also complete corroboration from the police investigation which was carried out in the concerned accident as Case Crime No.81 of 2014 under Sections 279, 337, 338 Motor Vehicles Act and charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the vehicle U.K. 04 CA - 0324. That way, it cannot be said that there was any doubt regarding involvement of the offending vehicle which in fact caused the accident. Therefore, plea so raised is not sustainable, the same is reject.
However, insofar as entire amount of compensation is concerned, obviously the same is well calculated and based on facts and circumstances of the case and the bills which were produced before the Tribunal aggregated to Rs.1,97,797/- besides other sums were also awarded under different heads to the tune of Rs.5000/-, thus aggregating to Rs.2,17,797. Therefore, the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal concerned cannot be faulted with at this stage.
For the aforesaid reason, the instant appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 rkg