Court No. - 16
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 43 of 2001 Appellant :- Tej Narain Dubey And Others Respondent :- Tileshwari Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- L.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.Sinha,Awadh Narain Rai,N.K.Mishra,Sanjay Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This First Appeal From Order is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge / Prescribed Authority, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballia, in Claim Case No. 13 of 1997, whereby Rs. 1,25,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded as compensation to the claimants- respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this case factum of accident alleged to have been caused by Tractor no. U.P. 60-A- 0549, is absolutely false hence denied. He also submits that the factum of incident is not proved by eye count testimony of any witness. No such accident as alleged was ever caused by the aforesaid vehicle. Merely because certain papers was filed by the police that alone is not sufficient to fasten responsibility of causing accident by the aforesaid vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the amount of compensation, which is under the circumstances is too excessive. Learned counsel for the appellants further adds that the liability to pay the amount of compensation has wrongly been fixed upon the appellants as the driver shown to ply the vehicle is not known to the appellants and the appellants never engaged the driver to drive the tractor in question. The son of the appellant used to drive the tractor in question whose valid licence was placed on record which was wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal. The driving licence which placed by the appellants ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that actually the vehicle in question was driven by his son and not by the driver involved in this case has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal on cogent and solid documents.
On perusal, record of the case is indicative of fact that in this case, the death resulted due to accident in question allegedly took place on 5.1.1997 at 2.30 P.M. in village Haldi Chatti, when the offending tractor being driven rashly and negligently by driver Ram Kumar son of Parashu Ram, pushed Radhakant Tatwa and trolly of the tractor passed over his stomach as a result of which he became senseless. The driver of the tractor in question made his escape good after causing the accident. The injured was taken to P.H.C. Hospital Dubhad, from where the doctor referred him to Sadar Hospital Ballia, and before reaching there, he succumbed to his injuries in the way. The report of the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed the claim was contested by the owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company whereupon as many as six issues were framed. Issue no. 1 related to the point of accident, issue no. 2 related to the point of insurance of the vehicle in question with the insurance company, issue no. 3 related to the driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle concerned. Issue nos. 4 and 6 related to the point of quantum of compensation and issue no.
5 related to the fact whether the tractor in question was being driven in terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Primarily the contention raised on the post of fact whether the tractor involved in the incident was proved by the eye count testimony or not. Both the claimant respondents and insurance company replied to the aforesaid contentions. Relevant papers i.e. copy of the FIR charge sheet and postmortem examination report etc. pertaining to deceased Radhakant was produced. The detail descriptions have been mentioned in the specific finding of the accident recorded by the trial court which cannot be faulted with, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
In this regard, specific findings have been recorded on the aforesaid issues. The finding is specific and positive on point of accident that it was caused on 5.1.1997 at 2.30 P.M. by Escort Tractor 325 No. UP 60A/0599 by driving the same rashly and negligently, which caused death of deceased Radhakant Tatwa. The finding so recorded cannot be disturbed for the reason that Shivji Yadav, who was eyewitness of the occurrence in question, was found to be innocuous and consistent and nothing adverse has emerged in the deposition of this witness to cast any shadow of doubt on the factual aspect of the accident.
In so far as the issue of awarding the compensation amount is concerned, that way, it is obvious that the tribunal after taking wholesome view of the incident in question, its nature and the loss incurred by the claimant/respondent, the tribunal was of the view that a lump sum of compensation amount pegging it to Rs.1,25,800/- should be the reasonable amount towards compensation under the head loss incurred to the claimant- respondent by way of loss of her husband (Radhakant Tatwa).
In so far as compensation amount under other heads is concerned, the same relates to be based on various bills and vouchers produced by the claimant- respondent before the Tribunal, which was rightly acted upon and calculated by the tribunal. Thus, total compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.1,25,800/- along with accruing interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of realization is just calculation and requires no interference.
In view of above, there is no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded is just and consistent, therefore, this First Appeal From Order is sans merit and the same is dismissed in limine.
Rs.25,000/- shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal and will be adjusted towards payment to be made to the injured- claimant.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Iss/