The court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, affirming the assessment of the deceased's income based on evidence presented, and ruled that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to contest the evidence.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Heard Sri. Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 5.

2. This first appeal from order has been filed assailing the judgment and award dated 20.10.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.463 of 2015(Smt. Sarita Devi and others v. Israil Khan and others), by means of which the claim petition has been allowed and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,55,472/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent alongwith the interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2016.

3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly and illegally assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side to the tune of Rs. 24733/- per month whereas the same should have been 13517/- per month according to the income tax return of the deceased for the year 2014-15 filed by the claimant respondents. He further submits that there was contradiction in the evidence of the P.W. 3 who was the clerk in the office of Khand Vikas Adhikari Rudauli, Faizabad,therefore the appellant had preferred an application for summoning the Khand Vikas Adhikari but the same was rejected. He further submits that the salary of the deceased has been assessed on the basis of the last pay drawn for the month of April 2015 and in regard to the aforesaid lesser amount of 13517/-, the explanation of the respondent has been accepted on the basis of information given under the Right to Information Act that the deceased was suspended during the said period, whereas the said information was filed after closure of the evidence,therefore the same could not have been considered by the learned tribunal.

4. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the damages have been allowed on the higher side, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Accordingly,appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and award dated 20.10.2023 is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submits that the deceased remained suspended from August 2014 to January 2015 and was reinstated into service on 17.01.2015,therefore, the income tax return filed for the year 2014-15 is of lesser amount. In this regard, the information received under the Right to Information Act was filed before the Tribunal before closure of the evidence and the same was taken on record by the Tribunal and despite opportunity given to the appellant also, no evidence contradicting the same was adduced by the appellant. Therefore the appellant are stopped from assailing the said order on this ground. He further submits that the application of the appellant for summoning the Khand Vikas Adhikari was rejected and the same has not been challenged. Even otherwise, the deceased who was working on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari had died in an accident on 28.05.2015 and the last pay drawn in the month of April 2015 was proved before the Tribunal. Considering the same, the salary of the deceased has rightly been considered and the damages have been assessed by the Tribunal. The appeal has been filed on mis-conceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of this appeal and the lower court records.

7. The deceased Hanslal,who was working on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari,while going from Rudauli Block to his village Dafapur from his Motor Cycle No.U.P. 32 EH 1493 on 28.05.2015 at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening met with an accident as the driver of Vehicle No.U.P. 32 F.N. 0372 coming from the back side, driving rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of the deceased, in which he died. In the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondents who are the heirs of the deceased, the accident was proved. In regard to the income of the deceased the salary certificate for the month of April 2015, ju