Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the award and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.29 of 2008 Chhuttan Lal Vs. Jeep Chalak Jeep No.UP 70 S 5228, Maan Singh and another whereby compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- along with 8% interest was directed to be realized from opposite party no.2, (the present appellant herein) in this appeal.
Brief reference of the relevant facts of the case as discernible from the certified copy of the impugned award appears to be that the accident took place on 16.10.2007 at 5:30 pm at Tank Crossing, Mathura while the deceased was proceeding towards his home by scooter no. U.P. 81 F 0840 along with Mormukut Yadav, Advocate when the Government Jeep No.U.P.70 S 5228 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the same with the aforesaid scooter due to which the deceased Harish Chandra succumbed to his injury while he was being taken to the hospital at Mathura.
The claimant-respondents preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal whereby it was claimed that the deceased Harish Chandra was bread earner for the entire family and he was head of his family. After his sudden demise, there is no one to look after family of the deceased. The claimant-respondents are mother, father and one minor brother. The deceased was an auto mechanic. He used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Under various heads, Rs.38,40,000/- was sought to be realized from the present appellant.
The claim petition was contested and both the parties raised their respective pleadings on the basis of which relevant issues were framed by the Tribunal.
Issue no.1 related to the point of the accident in question as to whether the accident in question was caused on 16.10.2007 at 5:30 pm at Tank Crossing Mathura by rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid jeep by its driver rashly and negligently due to which it dashed with the scooter of the deceased Harish Chandra, consequently, he sustained injury and succumbed to it while on way to the hospital at Mathura ?
Issue no.2 related to the quantum of compensation to be given to the claimant-respondents then its proportion?
Issue no.3 also related to the point of compensation to the claimant-respondents?
The claimant-respondents produced Mormukut Yadav PW-1, Chandra Bhan PW-2 and Chhuttan Lal PW-3 and also produced documentary evidence by moving list 6-C, which contained relevant papers, apart from producing papers vide 7-C/1 to 9C and 31-C to 36 C.
The opposite parties got examined Man Singh DW-1, driver of the aforesaid offending jeep. Thereafter, the Tribunal upon consideration of the submissions of both the parties and upon evaluation of the evidence on record, partly awarded the claim along with interest against the appellant.
Consequently, this appeal.
Crux contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in this case, proper evaluation / assessment of the situation on the spot was not made by the Tribunal, for specific reason that the road was being constructed on that date when the accident took place while the deceased scooterist was himself driving the scooter on the wrong side and he suddenly came and crossed the offending jeep due to which the jeep driver applied his brake but in the meanwhile, the deceased scooterist himself driving the scooter at high speed dashed the scooter with the jeep.
To vindicate his claim, learned counsel for the appellant has engaged attention of the Court to the testimony of Maan Singh DW-1, driver of the offending vehicle and has claimed that evidence so tendered by the driver of the offending vehicle was truthful and trustworthy, however, it was wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal and the version of Mormukut Yadav was taken to be correct, whereas, he being an Advocate was well versed to suit the interest of the claimant-respondents. The amount awarded as compensation is excessive and the rate of interest is also at enhanced rate than was required to be applied and the proper interest would have been fixed at the rate of 7% instead of 8%.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has supported the finding of the Tribunal and claimed that the amount of the impugned award under facts and circumstances of the case is justified.
Considered the rival submissions apart from testimony available on record.
Obviously, there are two witnesses namely Mormukut Yadav PW-1 and Maan Singh PW-2. Insofar as testimony of PW-1 is concerned, it cannot be said that PW-1 being an Advocate was highly interested person and biased in favour of the claimant-respondents. However, it was duty of every witness to come out with truth as to what was seen by him on the spot. No doubt, testimony of PW-1 is exposed to cross examination to be carried out by the other side.
However, I have also perused testimony of PW-1 wherein nothing adverse as claimed was found, on the other hand cross examination of DW-2 done on behalf of the claimant respondents throws certain doubt on the claim raised regarding mistake of the deceased himself in the accident. Apart from that, monthly income of the deceased under facts and circumstances of the case was found to be proper. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed to Rs.3000/- Consequently, annual income was Rs.36,000/-. After slicing off 2/3 of the same, it was pegged to Rs.24,000/-. While considering the dependency factor and primarily age of the parents of the deceased, multiplicand of 8 was applied to the aforesaid annual income Rs.24,000/- which after multiplication aggregated to Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.2000/- was awarded as funeral expenses. The total amount so fixed was Rs.1,94,000/-. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, it cannot be said to be excessive when the accident took place admittedly in the year 2007. After overall assessment of the award impugned and the entire interest, no infirmity is perceptible as such and the present appeal sans merits and is dismissed.
However, Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at this stage shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment of the distribution of the amount of compensation directed as above.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 rkg