Point of Law: Motor Accident Claims – Compensation - If amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/-in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow claimant to withdraw amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income-Tax Authority.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for National Insurance Co. Ltd., Sri Ram Singh, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the claimant-parents, Sri Manoj Nigam, learned counsel for claimant-widow and Sri Mata Pher, learned counsel for the owner of the truck.

2. By way of these appeals, claimants as well as the Insurance Company who has been saddled with liability have felt aggrieved by the award and decree dated 3.3.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) awarding sum of Rs.69,70,500/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%.

3. Parties are referred to as claimants as they were arrayed in Tribunal and Insurance Company, owner and driver namely opponents as arrayed in Tribunal.

4. As these are appeals under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per the decision of the Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, all the issues/grounds raised in the appeal and contested will have to be considered and decided.

5. The factual data as it emerges from the record is that the claimants are the legal heirs namely widow and parents of the deceased who died in the vehicular accident which occurred on 2.8.2015. Till penning of this judgment, it has not been brought on record whether the widow who has now in dispute with her in-laws after the decision of the Tribunal, has remarried or not? Therefore, we go on the premise that she continues to be the widow of the deceased.

6. The claimants had filed one claim petition being MACP No. 471 of 2015 before the Tribunal claiming sum of Rs.3,40,50,000/-for the death of Somesh Agrawal, as according to the claimants the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing No.UP 55 T 5151. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 28 years and was earning Rs.25,00,000/-per annum as he was qualified engineer and was engaged in the business of construction work for U.P. Power Corporation.

7. Respondent-Abdul Kalam Azad is the owner of the truck which was being driven by respondent-Afzal Sekh and was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. who have been saddled with the liability to make good the amount of compensation.

8. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The genesis of the accident as narrated in the claim petition and the record go to show that the accident occurred on 2.8.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. when the deceased was plying on his motorcycle bearing No.UP 93Z/7103 and was going to his factory at Pratappura, near Pratappur Gas Agency, the truck in question which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased from behind. The deceased died out of accidental injuries on the same evening.

9. Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 4 together as they were related to negligence and involvement of the vehicles in question. The learned Tribunal has decided the issues in favour of the claimants as First Information Report was filed against the driver of the truck and charge-sheet was laid against him. The claimants examined three witnesses out of whom P.W.2 was projected as eye-witness.

10. The claimants tried to prove negligence as is required under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by leading evidence and on relying upon documentary evidence produced. The vehicle being insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. was sought to be proved by documents filed by the owner of the said vehicle who had filed reply and driving license of the driver as 17C-1/6. Very strangely the Insurance Company filed document showing that the driver was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle and the said licence had expired but did not produce any such documentary evidence so as to convincingly prove that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was unauthorized. The compensation as