Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2306 (ALL)

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. LAHOORI

2011-09-29

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.3.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Petition No. 39 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,86,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents and against the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.3.2008 at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased was going on cycle from Bhawaniganj to Durgaram-ka-Purwa. From the opposite side, a tractor bearing No. U.P. 33-E 9752 was driven by its driver carelessly and negligently and dashed the deceased, who died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 28 years old and was working at brick-kiln. After the accident, the driver of the tractor left the vehicle on the spot and run away. Later on, the tractor was carried at the police station and FIR was lodged. 3. After examining the entire evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,86,000/- against the owner of the vehicle (appellant) for the reason that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. Being not satisfied, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no accident was occurred by the tractor in question as no evidence was furnished to this effect. No number of the tractor was noted down by any eye-witness. The tractor of the appellant has been implicated into accident merely on the basis of suspicion. The claimant has stated that the tractor run over the stomach of the deceased, which was burst but there was no injury found in the post-mortem report. The deceased was non-functional as he was affected by Polio. At the cost of repetition, he submits that the tractor of the appellant was not involved in the accident and this is a case of hit and ran by unknown vehicle. Nowhere any blood stained was found over the tractor. During the normal course of checking, the driver of the tractor was failed to show the insurance papers of the vehicle so the vehicle was retained by the police officer. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned award made kindly be set aside. 5. Nowhere any blood stained was found over the tractor. During the normal course of checking, the driver of the tractor was failed to show the insurance papers of the vehicle so the vehicle was retained by the police officer. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned award made kindly be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Sri J.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied on the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. He accepted that no cross appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the compensation. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the materials available on the record. 7. From the records, it appears that there was no insurance of the tractor in question on the date of the accident. The owner of the tractor in his statement stated that he has furnished the bail bond in the Court for the release of the driver. The tractor was also released by the Court. It also appears that the tractor was too old so the number plate was not readable. In other words, there was no valid number plate on the tractor as the numbers were vanished. After the accident, the driver run away by leaving the tractor, later on which was carried at the police station and chassis number and engineer number S-324-B07850 has been noted down. Finally, the tractor was released by the Court. Eye-witnesses has submitted that the tractor in question was Maxi Fortune and in red colour which is identical to the tractor of the appellant. 8. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the view that the tractor in question was involved in the accident as the driver has left the same after the accident and finally driver as well as tractor were released by the Court. 9. Regarding the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was suffering with the Polio and unable to earn anything. But fact remains that deceased was aged about 28 years old. Even if we will take the notional income as laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another; 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), the compensation in question appears meager. However, fact remains that there is no cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Even if we will take the notional income as laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another; 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), the compensation in question appears meager. However, fact remains that there is no cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 10. In view of above, we uphold the impugned order passed by the Tribunal alongwith reasons mentioned therein. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount in the Tribunal concerned in terms of award within a period of one month, if already not deposited. 11. The amount deposited in this Court, shall also be remitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately who will proceed in terms of the award. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs. ——————