ANITA SINHA Vs. PRAKASH DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.

(2.) This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dtd. 18/11/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 602 of 2008.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for our purpose, which relates to the litigation are that the accident occurred on 2/12/2007 at about 6.00 PM when the driver of the Truck drove the truck rashly and negligently and dashed the Maruti Car driven by the deceased, whereby the deceased was plying his car and going from Lucknow to Gorakhpur and the deceased died due to accidental injuries is not in dispute. The involvement of the truck is also not in dispute. The Insurance Company did not prove that there was any breach of policy conditions and they were directed to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased. The owner and driver of the truck have absented themselves and have not entered into witness box. The respondents (owner and driver) filed written statement, which is one of denial. The Insurance Company also filed its reply one of denial and there is breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal framed four issues and held that as the charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the truck and as such post mortem showed that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, therefore, the Tribunal case to the conclusion that the death occurred due to accidental injuries. The Tribunal held that the driver of the truck was the sole author of the accident. The issue nos. 2 and 3 were also decided against the respondents. It is only the finding of facts of issue no.4, which has aggrieved the appellants herein. The deceased was 47 years of age as believed by the Tribunal. The deceased was working with Uptron India Limited as an officer and was also into the consultancy work. The Tribunal, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, did not consider the income of consultancy as no certificate was produced. The Tribunal, according to the counsel, considered the salary Rs.75816.00 per annum and granted multiplier of 13 and deducted 1/3 as personal expenses and added Rs.9500.00 as non pecuniary damages. It is admitted position that no amount was granted under the head of future loss of income despite the fact that ITR return showed that the deceased was earning Rs.1,67,855.00 which is bad.