Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2382 (ALL)

Rama Shanker Maurya v. Ram Singh

2010-08-06

SATISH CHANDRA

body2010
Satish Chandra, J. - 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in Claim Petition No. 71 of 2001 (Ram Singh v. Rama Shanker & Others) whereby a compensation of rupees one lac was awarded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2001 at about 5.30 pm, Sri Sahdev Singh (hereinafter referred as deceased) was crossing the Sultanpur-Jaunpur National Highway by his bicycle. A motorcycle no. U.P.72-8425 came with speed and dashed the cyclist. The deceased sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital and next day he was referred to Lucknow where he died. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was taken as 60 years. The son of the deceased has filed the Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- as consortium, loss of estate and funeral etc. Thus, the total compensation of rupees one lac was awarded against the appellant. 3. With this background, Sri S. P. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant has not filed any Khatauni nor produced any witness to prove the income of the deceased. The award was passed on the basis of presumption and without any material evidence, which is on higher side. He also submits that there was no evidence of the rash and negligent driving but the Tribunal has passed the award against the appellant contrary to the material evidence. The claimant-respondent who was about 28 years of age cannot proved the dependency of the deceased. So, award cannot be passed. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mrs. Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque and others; 2007 (4) T.A.C. 1 (S.C) where it was observed that right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. The legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. 4. Learned counsel further relied on the ration laid down in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. The legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. 4. Learned counsel further relied on the ration laid down in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007 AIR SCW 1962 where it was observed that liability in terms of Section 140 however does not cease because of absence of dependency. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel also submits that this is a case of no fault liability as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, the compensation is on higher side. He also relied on the ratio laid down the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Tara Devi and others; 1996 (1) TAC 614 where it was observed that major sons are not entitled to compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939. The fact remains that the present case is not covered by the Old Act No. 1939. So, the ratio is not applicable in the instant case. Lastly, he made a request that the order may kindly be set aside and award be computed as per the doctrine of no fault liability. 6. On the other hand Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the compensation of Rs.80,000/- is meager one as originally the claim was made for Rs.3,35,000/-. He also submits that the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was engaged in the agricultural activities and also selling the vegetables. So, he prays that the compensation may be enhanced. 7. Heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. 8. From the record, it appears that on 14.02.2001 in the evening at about 5.30 pm, when Sri Sahdev Singh 'deceased' was crossing the National Highway on his bicycle, a motorcycle NO. U.P.72--8425 came with speed and dashed the cyclist, resulted into serious injuries to the deceased who died next day in the hospital at Lucknow. 9. 8. From the record, it appears that on 14.02.2001 in the evening at about 5.30 pm, when Sri Sahdev Singh 'deceased' was crossing the National Highway on his bicycle, a motorcycle NO. U.P.72--8425 came with speed and dashed the cyclist, resulted into serious injuries to the deceased who died next day in the hospital at Lucknow. 9. In the instant case, the accident is not in dispute as FIR was lodged against the appellant. The appellant himself has admitted that he has purchased the motorcycle in question before three and half years from one Sri Ram Raj Mishra. It was not transferred in his name but he admitted that the vehicle was in possession and at the relevant date and time, he had gone from his house to the Press. The appellant also claimed that he was possessing the valid driving license but the same was not produced at any stage before the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal after examining the eye witnesses including Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, who was having the shop near the occurrence and stated that appellant driving the said motorcycle and he had also fallen down due to the accident with the cyclist (deceased). So, the accident is not in dispute. The said motorcycle was not insured. So, the sole liability lies upon the owner of the motorcycle i.e. the appellant. 11. In the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned at 60 years. So, the Tribunal has taken the same. The notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs.1500/- because no evidence was furnished pertaining to the higher income. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd of the amount on self expenditure, applied the multiplier of eight and computed the compensation of Rs.80,000/-. In addition, Rs.20,000/- were also awarded as consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation come to rupees one lac. The same appears reasonable. Thus, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. 12. Needless to say that when the compensation was awarded as per schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no question of enhancement of the compensation. So, the cross objection has no merit, the same is also dismissed. 13. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 14. The appeal as well as the cross objection are hereby dismissed. So, the cross objection has no merit, the same is also dismissed. 13. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 14. The appeal as well as the cross objection are hereby dismissed. The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur, who shall proceed in terms of the award.