Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1525 (ALL)

Chhabiraji Devi v. U. P. S. P. Nigam

2016-04-25

ABHAI KUMAR, ARUN TANDON

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 has been filed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh, dated 31.01.1986, passed in Claim Petition No. 132 of 1983. 2. Under the order impugned the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8500/- as the total compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claimant of appeal is not satisfied with the compensation so determined, hence he has approached this Court by means of the present appeal. 3. Facts in short dealing to the appeal are as follows:- On 2nd June 1983 at 9.30 A.M. Dhanju Ram the deceased is stated to be travelling on his bicycle on Varanasi-Azamgarh road. He was proceeding towards his village near Block Development Office, Lalganj. He was hit by a Bus bearing registration No. U.R.O. 852, he received fatal injuries. The wife and other legal heirs of Dhanju Ram filed the said claim petition, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. 4. The claim was contested by the owner of the vehicle as well as U.P.S.R.T.C. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following three issue for determination:- "1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. U.R.O.852 or due to contributory negligence of deceased himself ? In either case it effect? 2. Whether the injuries of deceased were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death? if so, its effect? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled?" 5. Issue no. 1 has been answered in favour of the claimant, so also the issue no. 2. In respect of issue no. 3 following finding has been returned:- "The age of the deceased on the date of accident was approximately 60 years. This finding has been returned to the reference to the material evidence including the statement of Ram Palat. According to the statement made in the petition, the statement made by Ram Palat during cross-examination, the statement made by Sub-Inspector Sri Sita Ram Singh. The post mortem report and the statement of the Sub-inspector Sita Ram Singh and Jamman Singh." 6. We have examined the evidence so referred to in the order of the Tribunal and do not fined any reason to take any different view with regard to the determination of the age of the appellant. The post mortem report and the statement of the Sub-inspector Sita Ram Singh and Jamman Singh." 6. We have examined the evidence so referred to in the order of the Tribunal and do not fined any reason to take any different view with regard to the determination of the age of the appellant. It has been then held that the appellant claimed to be an employee in Godrej Company, but there was nothing to established that an employee after attaining the age of 60 years has continued or was entitled to any pension etc. from the company concerned. 7. It has been recorded that any money in lump-sum payable to the employee concerned, after attaining the age of 60 years, must have been paid. 8. The Tribunal has thereafter recorded that the claimant nos. 2 and 3 were major sons and claimant no.4 was the daughter who had been married subsequent to the death of the deceased. 9. In the facts of the case the Tribunal has found it fit and proper to provide compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental shock etc. Expenses towards funeral etc. have also been awarded. 10. Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to challenge the quantum of compensation so determined by submitting that the deceased was still working with the Godrej Company which aspect of the matter has not been rightly appreciate by the Tribunal. 11. We find that a certificate was produced by the appellant in support of his engagement with M/s Godrej Company on the date of the accident, could the same not be proved before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not accepted the certificate. 12. In the totality of the circumstances on record, we do not find any good reason to take any different view than the one which has been taken by the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record. 13. Appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.