Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4090 (ALL)

Savitri v. Munna Lal Dixit

2015-12-21

ASHOK PAL SINGH, NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Shri Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Mr. Alok Kirti Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. D.K. Raizada, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Room No. 2, Sultanpur (in short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.44 of 2009. 3. By means of award impugned, the Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs.1,86,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The deceased, Kamla Prasad, who was the husband of appellant no. 1, died along with one Vijay Kumar on 11.07.2008. While they had been travelling on motorcycle, they collided with one truck bearing Truck No.HR-55/4475, which was coming from the opposite side. Since both of them died, the claimants of Vijay Kumar deceased had also filed a claim petition being Claim Petition No. 328/2008. In the claim petition filed by the successors of Vijay Kumar, no contributory negligence was found on behalf of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation. 4. Whereas in the present case, on the basis of finding of fifty percent contributory negligence, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- to the claimants, who are successors of Kamla Prasad. In the case on hand, the statement of the same witnesses had been discussed. PW-2-Om Prakash Yadav was the eye witness, who in both the cases had stated that the truck, which was coming from the opposite side, rushed in right side and collided with motorcycle. The collision was so serious that Vijay Kumar and Kamla Prasad both died. 5. Keeping in view the same statement of fact as stated by eye witness, we are of the view that there was no reason for the Tribunal to form a different opinion in the present case. More so in the case on hand as no evidence of contributory negligence has been found proved but the Tribunal has proceeded to form opinion of contributory negligence on the basis of assumption. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the present case was not a case of contributory negligence as this factum has not been approved by any of the witnesses produced by the appellants/claimants. No witness at all has been produced by the respondents to establish the same. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the present case was not a case of contributory negligence as this factum has not been approved by any of the witnesses produced by the appellants/claimants. No witness at all has been produced by the respondents to establish the same. The finding of contributory negligence thus being contrary to the evidence is completely based on assumption, therefore, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled to the whole amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 7. A bare perusal of the award shows that after considering the income of the deceased as well as other factors like multiplier etc., the Tribunal had determined the deceased total income as Rs.3,72,000/- per annum. Therefore, we hereby entitle the appellants/claimants to get a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- as compensation from the respondents. The award dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.44 of 2009 is modified to this extent. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to get the modified amount of award in terms of award dated 22.03.2010. 8. In view of the aforesaid terms, the appeal stands allowed. 9. The Office is directed to return the lower court record to the court concerned.