Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2316 (ALL)

Mohd. Sattar Shekh v. Vibha Mishra

2023-10-09

JASPREET SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard Shri. Aviral Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Shyam Charan Dixit, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. 2. By means of the instant appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant assails the award dated 31.10.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.350 of 2016, whereby the M.A.C.T./Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow in a death case has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,25,375/- along with 6% interest per annum in favour of the claimants respondents. 3. A solitary point for challenge to the award, has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimants respondents stated that the deceased was 47 years old. However, no material was brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact. It is further submitted that despite specific questions having been put to PW-1, who was widow of the deceased during her cross-examination, that the deceased was over 50 years of age, but no document to substantiate the age was filed and it is the contention of the appellant that despite the respondents having documents such as aadhaar card, ration card or the first information report but it was not filed, accordingly, in absence of any such document, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the age as mentioned in the post mortem report is erroneous, which has affected the quantum of the award and accordingly the award dated 31st October, 2018 requires a modification. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the claimants had filed with all necessary documents and insofar as the accident is concerned, the factum is not disputed. The post mortem report was also brought on record, wherein the age of the deceased was mentioned as 47 years and in absence of any other contradictory evidence, the Tribunal has recorded on the same. The salary slip was also placed on record indicating the income of the deceased and taking the aforesaid in context, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation, which otherwise is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 5. The salary slip was also placed on record indicating the income of the deceased and taking the aforesaid in context, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation, which otherwise is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court apparently finds that the factum of accident has not been disputed and nor the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.U.P. 32 EQ-8210. Once the aforesaid findings are not under challenge, the only issue, which has been raised is regarding the age of the deceased. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards cross-examination of PW-1, wherein a suggestion was put to the PW-1 that the age of the deceased was above 50 years. However, this Court finds that to the aforesaid suggestion, it was categorically denied by the witness that the age of the deceased was over 50 years. Moreover, no such suggestion was put to the witness that she was in possession of documents such as aadhaar card, ration card, which indicates the date of birth of the deceased and it was not deliberately filed. 6. Be that as it may, even aadhaar card is not a document of age proof, rather it is merely a document of identity. In case, if the claimants-respondents did not file any such document, it will not affect the merits. Moreover, the Court has adopted the age as reflected in the post mortem report, which in absence of any other document is the only document to support. 7. No effort was made by the appellant to prove the age of the deceased to be more than 50 years of age. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit. This Court finds that the award, which has been passed by the Tribunal dated 31.10.2018 in Claim Petition No.350 of 2016 does not suffer any error, which may persuade this Court to intervene. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. This Court finds that the award, which has been passed by the Tribunal dated 31.10.2018 in Claim Petition No.350 of 2016 does not suffer any error, which may persuade this Court to intervene. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. In case, any amount is deposited by the appellant before this Court, the same shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents in terms of the award dated 31.10.2018 and any shortfall shall also be paid within 60 days from today. 10. Let the record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith.