Court No. - 16
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1232 of 1994 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Hari Narain & Ohters Counsel for Appellant :- Ganga Prasad
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the award dated 23.07.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in MACP No.19 of 1990 Hari Narain Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, the accident in question was not properly proved and quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and erroneous and in view of the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven in discharge of the official duty, no responsibility can be fastened on the State for making any payment in this case as the State is immuned from any liability to compensate anyone who sustained injury or death was caused on account of any accident involving the aforesaid vehicle. However, factum of the accident is also denied.
Considered the submissions.
Record reflects that in this case, the accident was caused on 09.11.1989 in the village Imohata by the side of the road by rash and negligent driving of Jeep USC-2315 around 12:00 noon, which resulted into injury being caused to Km. Mamta daughter of Hari Narain. The case was contested by the State on several counts whereby the Tribunal concerned framed as many as three issues. Issue no.1 related to point of the accident. Issue nos.2 and 3 related to the aspect of compensation to be awarded and its amount to the claimants.
Insofar as point of the factum of the accident on issue no.1 is concerned, a detailed and reasoned appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances vis-a-vis law has been made by the Tribunal. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, looking to the magnitude of injury caused which resulted into death of Km. Mamta, a meager compensation amount Rs.20,000/- was awarded, for which respondents (appellants herein) were jointly held liable. Finding so recorded cannot be faulted at this juncture because no either latent or patent error is perceptible and compensation awarded is not excessive.
For the aforesaid reason, the instant appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 rkg