-1-
Court No. - 7
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 88 of 2004
Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Maurya
Respondent :- Ram Singh
Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Maurya
Respondent Counsel :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan
WITH
Case :- CROSS OBJECTION No. - 12 of 2004
Petitioner :- Ram Singh (Inre W.P. No- Fafo- 88/2004)
Respondent :- Rama Shankar Maurya
Petitioner Counsel :- S.S Chauhan,
Respondent Counsel :- S. P. Maurya
*******
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2004
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in Claim
Petition No. 71 of 2001 (Ram Singh v. Rama Shanker & Others)
whereby a compensation of rupees one lac was awarded.
The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2001 at about 5.30
pm, Sri Sahdev Singh (hereinafter referred as deceased) was
crossing the Sultanpur-Jaunpur National Highway by his bicycle. A
motorcycle no. U.P.72-8425 came with speed and dashed the cyclist.
The deceased sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital
and next day he was referred to Lucknow where he died. As per the
postmortem report, the age of the deceased was taken as 60 years.
The son of the deceased has filed the Claim Petition before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation
of Rs.80,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- as consortium, loss of estate and
-2-
funeral etc. Thus, the total compensation of rupees one lac was
awarded against the appellant.
With this background, Sri S. P. Maurya, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the claimant has not filed any Khatauni nor
produced any witness to prove the income of the deceased. The
award was passed on the basis of presumption and without any
material evidence, which is on higher side. He also submits that
there was no evidence of the rash and negligent driving but the
Tribunal has passed the award against the appellant contrary to the
material evidence. The claimant-respondent who was about 28 years
of age cannot proved the dependency of the deceased. So, award
cannot be passed. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down
in the case of Mrs. Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque and
others; 2007 (4) T.A.C. 1 (S.C) where it was observed that right to
file a claim application has to be considered in the background of
right to entitlement. The legal representative is one who suffers on
account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not
necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. Learned counsel
further relied on the ration laid down in the case of Smt. Manjuri
Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007 AIR SCW 1962 where it
was observed that liability in terms of Section 140 however does not
cease because of absence of dependency. Therefore, even if there
is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal
representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which
shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.
-3-
Learned counsel also submits that this is a case of no fault
liability as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, the
compensation is on higher side. He also relied on the ratio laid down
the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another
v. Tara Devi and others; 1996 (1) TAC 614 where it was observed
that major sons are not entitled to compensation under Section 110-A
of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939. The fact remains that the present
case is not covered by the Old Act No. 1939. So, the ratio is not
applicable in the instant case. Lastly, he made a request that the
order may kindly be set aside and award be computed as per the
doctrine of no fault liability.
On the other hand Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan learned counsel
for the opposite party submits that the compensation of Rs.80,000/- is
meager one as originally the claim was made for Rs.3,35,000/-. He also
submits that the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was engaged in
the agricultural activities and also selling the vegetables. So, he prays that
the compensation may be enhanced.
Heard both the parties at length and gone through the material
available on record.
From the record, it appears that on 14.02.2001 in the evening at
about 5.30 pm, when Sri Sahdev Singh ‘deceased’ was crossing the
National Highway on his bicycle, a motorcycle NO. U.P.72–8425 came
with speed and dashed the cyclist, resulted into serious injuries to the
deceased who died next day in the hospital at Lucknow.
In the instant case, the accident is not in dispute as FIR was
lodged against the appellant. The appellant himself has admitted that
-4-
he has purchased the motorcycle in question before three and half
years from one Sri Ram Raj Mishra. It was not transferred in his
name but he admitted that the vehicle was in possession and at the
relevant date and time, he had gone from his house to the Press. The
appellant also claimed that he was possessing the valid driving
license but the same was not produced at any stage before the
Tribunal.
The Tribunal after examining the eye witnesses including Sri
Shiv Kumar Singh, who was having the shop near the occurrence
and stated that appellant driving the said motorcycle and he had also
fallen down due to the accident with the cyclist (deceased). So, the
accident is not in dispute. The said motorcycle was not insured. So,
the sole liability lies upon the owner of the motorcycle i.e. the
appellant.
In the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was
mentioned at 60 years. So, the Tribunal has taken the same. The
notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs.1500/- because no
evidence was furnished pertaining to the higher income. The Tribunal
after deducting 1/3rd of the amount on self expenditure, applied the
multiplier of eight and computed the compensation of Rs.80,000/-. In
addition, Rs.20,000/- were also awarded as consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation come to
rupees one lac. The same appears reasonable. Thus, the appeal has
no merit and the same is dismissed.
Needless to say that when the compensation was awarded as
-5-
per schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no question of
enhancement of the compensation. So, the cross objection has no
merit, the same is also dismissed.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons
mentioned therein.
The appeal as well as the cross objection are hereby
dismissed. The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be
transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur, who
shall proceed in terms of the award.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010
VNP/-
-6-
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Dismissed.
For orders see my order of
date passed on the separate
sheets.
Dated : 06.08.2010
VNP/FAFO 88/2004
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Dismissed.
For orders see my order of
date passed on FAFO No. 88 of
2004.
Dated : 06.08.2010
VNP/Cross Objection 12/2004