Babu Lal and Another vs Suneet Kumar and 2 Ors.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

This appeal by claimant-appellants challenges the impugned award dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Gorakhpur in Claim Petition No. 333 of 2008, Babu Lal v. Sumeet Kumar Singh and Others. By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 43,900 along with interest of 7% per annum to be paid by defendant-respondent No. 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. on 9.7.2008 till the date of payment. The appellants have assailed the aforesaid award for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 12,37,100 i.e. differences between the amount claimed and the amount awarded given along with interest at present market rate as claimed in the application on the ground that the learned Tribunal has recorded finding against the facts and law and it is wholly vague and against the evidence on record and as such it is not justified.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the husband of the claimant-appellant had sustained serious injuries due to incident on 11.5.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., as a result of rashly and negligently driving of the vehicle No. U.P. 53 T 7126 by defendant No. 1. It is stated that the Tribunal has failed to consider material aspect of the case; that the injured was admitted in District Hospital, Gorakhpur for treatment in which huge amount has been spent and that the Tribunal has also committed error in calculating the earning of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month from business of the animal and agriculture as claimed as well as the factum of mental agony.

The background of the case is that on 11.5.2008 at about 8.30 a.m. Babu Lal Maurya, the husband of the claimant-respondent Smt. Reshma Devi, met with an accident when he was bringing "Bhoosa" from "Khalihan" of Gram Pradhan. It appears from the record that Motor Vehicle No. U.P. 53 T.7126 Tata-207 was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the narrow Kharanja road without blowing horn hit Babu Lal when he was crossing the road. The driver lost its control of the vehicle and it went on off the road. Babu Lal received serious injuries and his right Khoola was fractured in the accident. He was admitted in the District Hospital where he had succumbed to his injuries on 4.3.2009.

The claim application preferred by the claimant was contested by owner of the vehicle by filing written statement. He took a stand that no accident had taken place by the said vehicle; that all its papers including insurance were valid and effective on 11.5.2008 and that the driver of the said vehicle also had valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident. The National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the vehicle also contested the case by filing written statement. It supported the averments made by the vehicle owner that neither the said vehicle was involved in any accident nor any injuries have been caused to Sri Babu Lal Maurya (since deceased) in the manner stated by the claimants; that the said vehicle was not insured by the Company and even otherwise the driver has not having a valid and effective licence. It was further stated in the written statement of the Insurance Company that the said vehicle was being plied against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act hence it was not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimants. After the death of Babu Lal Maurya an additional written statement was filed by the Insurance Company stating that he had not been caused any injuries in the accident rather he died his natural death and in these circumstances the claimant is not entitled to any compensation.

The driver of the vehicle respondent No. 3 denied any accident from the said vehicle. Babu Lal Maurya was claimed to have received grievous injuries due to which he succumbed on 4.3.2009. He was falsely implicated in this case. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed following issues:

"Hindi matter omitted"

Smt. Reshma Devi the claimant filed number of documents i.e. F.I.R., injury report, X-ray report, registration certificate, insurance form, photo copy of the driving licence, photo copy of bed head ticket, receipt of purchase of medicines for treatment in District Hospital, Gorakhpur, post-mortem report, inquest report and discharge slip in original. She appeared as witness and gave her statement before the Court as P.W. 1 and has also produced Prem Chandra Nishad as P.W. 2 in support of her case.

The Tribunal after hearing of Counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences on record held that accident was caused by vehicle No. U.P. 53 T. 7126 Tata-207 at about 8.30 a.m. in the manner stated by the claimants in which Babu Lal Maurya (since deceased) had received serious injuries who was treated for about 10 months and succumbed to the injuries during his treatment.

The Tribunal found that Babu Lal Maurya was discharged from the hospital on 11.5.2008 and there were no prescriptions of his treatment after 26.6.2008, as such disbelieved the statement of P.W. 1 that her husband Babu Lal Maurya died as a result of injuries during treatment received in the alleged accident.

A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal of the said accident that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle in question, that the vehicle in question was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited under the Policy No. 451201/31/07/6700013728. Regarding the age of the deceased the Tribunal found that claim petition was filed by the injured Babu Lal Maurya at the relevant time stating him to be about 50 years of age, whereas in her statement he was stated to be 48 years of age but in the Medico Legal Report, discharge bed head ticket, discharge slip and the post-mortem report his age has been shown as 60 years. Therefore, the Tribunal relying upon the documentary medical evidence in preference to age given in oral statement fixed the age of the deceased as 60 years. It also appears that the Tribunal has considered the question of dependency as well as the details of income. The Tribunal noted that it was claimed that Babu Lal Maurya was earning Rs. 6,000 per month from business of animals and sale or purchase agricultural but there was no evidence of any sale or purchase as such his notional income Rs. 3000 was fixed.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on the basis of record the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 towards treatment in application of traction of his bone and loss of work from 21.5.2008 to 26.6.2008 for the period the injured was in hospital at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month; on the basis of notional income, Rs. 5000 for health, diet and Rs. 5,000 towards purchase of medicines, total amount of Rs. 43,900. The claimants could not prove income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000 per month as claimed by them nor his treatment after 26.6.2008. The medical bills for treatment of Babu Lal Maurya which were proved were paid. The age of the injured Babu Lal Maurya (since deceased) has been determined on the basis of documentary evidence on record and it appears that the claim has been highly inflated by the appellant.

For all the reasons stated above, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. It is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.