Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2282 (ALL)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailashwati

2023-10-05

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT Saral Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance company challenging the award dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,95,600/- along with 9% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents. 3. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is case of false implication of offending Tempo No. U.P.-27-5636 inasmuch as no cogent evidence was brought on record by the claimants/respondents to establish that the deceased was travelling in the Tempo and had died due to the negligence of the driver of the Tempo. Accordingly, it is submitted that Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability upon the insurance company to pay compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that claimants/respondents have produced P.W.2 Yogesh Kumar as eye witness of the accident, who proved the occurrence of accident, and insurance company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal the testimony of P.W.2. He further contends that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive inasmuch as Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospect. In such view of the fact, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, the Tribunal in concluding that deceased was travelling on the Tempo and died in the accident has considered the testimony of P.W.2 in detail and Tribunal did not find any inconsistency in the testimony of P.W.2. The insurance company did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of P.W.2. 6. In such view of the fact, this Court is of the view that Tribunal has rightly concluded that deceased was travelling in the tempo and died. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of offending vehicle is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 7. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of offending vehicle is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 7. So far as the quantification of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospect. The Tribunal is duty bound to award just and fair compensation. 8. In such view of the fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantification of compensation. 9. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order on Cross Objection/Cross Appeal No. 145 of 2023. Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the cross objector states that cross objection may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, cross objection is dismissed as not pressed.