Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1844 (ALL)

State of U. P. and others v. Shahid and others

2011-08-02

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2011
Devi Prasad Singh & Satish Chandra, J.;- Delay condoned. Appeal is taken on merit. 2. Heard learned standing counsel, Sri V.K.Pandey and Sri A.K.Mishra for the respondents and gone through the record. 3. Present appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the impugned award dated 3.5.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 321 of 2008. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Sajid aged eleven years was student of Class IV and he was studying in Mahavir Pimary Pathshala, Gabhariya: on 13th July, 2008 while he was returning back to his house, at about 1.00 p.m. a vehicle bearing registration No.UP32-AD/3714 dashed with Sajid and crushed him. In the accident Sajid succumbed to injury. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714. An FIR was lodged and claimants approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation. The Tribunal framed issues with regard to validity of driving licence and insurance policy etc. A finding has been recorded that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714.The accident was duly proved by the eye witnesses P.W. 2 Rahat Ali who stated before the Tribunal that accident occurred opposite to his house at about 1.00 p.m. He stated that vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714 was chasing a Commander Jeep No. MP19/A-6524 and during time Shahid and his son Sajid were standing adjacent the road. During the course of chase by the vehicle, accident was caused by vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714. It is also stated that it was a government vehicle belonging to ARTO, Sultanpur hence it could not be stopped Sajid died on the spot. Vehicle No. MP19/A-6524 was being chased by the A.R.T.O and Sajid was was not at fault. Another witness P.W. 3 Mohd. Javed also affirmed the accident and stated that the Commander jeep was being chased by the ARTO Jeep No. UP32-AD/3714. 5. From the evidence on record it appears that vehicle No. MP19/A-6524 was being chased by the government vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714 and accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the government vehicle. The deceased was not at fault. 6. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant Rs. 5. From the evidence on record it appears that vehicle No. MP19/A-6524 was being chased by the government vehicle No. UP32-AD/3714 and accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the government vehicle. The deceased was not at fault. 6. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant Rs. 15,000/per month and after deducting 1/3rd in lieu of personal expanses awarded compensation by applying a multiplier of 10 in term of second Schedule. The compensation is only Rs. 1,00000/along with Rs. 2000/for last rites and Rs. 2500/for the loss of estate. 7. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and impropriety. The accident has been proved by cogent and trustworthy eye witnesses and was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the government vehicle mentioned above. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal seems to be well reasoned based on sound principle of law. The Tribunal has also given only 6 % interest from the date of filing of claim petition, that too is not excessive. 8. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.