Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1434 of 2010 Appellant :- State of U.P. and another Respondent :- Shailendra Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Chaube S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- I.P.Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1988”) has been filed by State challenging the judgment and award dated 28.01.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 52 of 2006 whereby compensation of Rs. 3,73,250/- has been awarded to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of petition.
3. It is contended that multiplier has wrongly been applied since the age of victim was 28 years but multiplier of 16 has been applied. However, I find that as per judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298, for the age of 25 to 30 multiplier should be 17 but in the case in hand, Tribunal has awarded compensation by applying multiplier of 16 and, thus, it cannot be said that compensation has been awarded by applying higher multiplier.
4. It is next contended that disability has been taken 50 per cent but no certificate was produced. However, I find that Tribunal has examined this aspect and recorded a finding that disability certificate was produced showing disability of 50 per cent. Relevant finding reads as under:
^^tks fd fodykaWxrk dk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g O;fDr 50 izfr'kr fodykax gks x;k gS^^ “Disability certificate has been produced, according to which the disability of person concerned is 50 per cent.” (English Translation by Court)
5. Therefore, the contention advanced is contrary to record.
6. It is next contended that the income has been taken on higher side but Trial Court has proceeded on the basis of notional income of unskilled labour of Rs. 100/- per day which, from no stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive or unjust.
7. No other point has been argued.
8. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 27.09.2019 PS Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1434 of 2010 Appellant :- State of U.P. and another Respondent :- Shailendra Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Chaube S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- I.P.Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 251283 2010:
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.
Order Date :- 27.09.2019 PS