Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1648 of 2006
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- Shiv Nath Yadav (Dead) And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Shama,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Vashistha Tewari
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
The appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgement and award dated 25.02.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Deoria in MACP No.93 of 2004 whereby, Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,17,500/- along with 7.5% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that deceased was riding on his motorcycle and was hit by Bus No.U.P.-53-G- 8813 which was coming from the opposite direction and since it was a case of head on collision between the two vehicles, therefore, there must have some negligence of the deceased in the said accident.
Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the claimants/respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time the accident.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus and this fact was proved by the testimony of eye witness PW-2 Ravindra Giri and the charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the bus . He further submits that Tribunal had rightly disbelieved the testimony of DW-1 Anand Prakash Rai on the issue of negligence as he was not the eye witness of the alleged accident.
Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents further contends that Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, 2008 AICC 915 (SC) has held Rs.3,000/- per month to be the notional income in a case where accident had taken place in the year 2004. Thus, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal to be Rs.3,000/- per month is just and proper.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The Tribunal while holding the negligence of the driver of the bus has considered in detail the testimony of PW-2 Ravindra Giri, who was the eye witness of the accident. Though appellant has produced DW-1 Anand Prakash Rai as its witness but Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of DW-1 Anand Prakash Rai, as he was not the eye witness of the accident. Thus, in view of the said fact, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is a finding of fact and based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record and the same is accordingly affirmed.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of quantification of compensation is also not sustainable for the reasons that Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others (supra) has held Rs.3,000/- per month to be the notional income of a person who died in the year 2004. Thus, following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Case of Laxmi Devi and Others (supra), the notional income of Rs.3,000/- of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is just and fair and cannot be said to be on higher side.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Sattyarth