RADHA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimant's appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims' Tribunal, Sitapur, dated 7-2-1979, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,53,795.34 p. as compensation.

(2.) Ram Kishore Agarwal, a young man of 28 years was in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department. On 3-8-1977 he was travelling in a Government vehicle--a jeep bearing number UTE 4698, from Lucknow to Sitapur, on official duty, The vehicle was being driven by Hemnath who was also in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as driver. A number of other persons were sitting in the vehicle. After covering a distance of 40 to 45 Kms. the driver lost control of the vehicle and it swerved to its right side and collided with the trunk of a tree on the right side of the road as a result of which the occupants including Ram Kishore received severe injuries. Ram Kishore Agarwal received severe injuries on his head and leg. He was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. He left behind Smt. Radha Agarwal, as his widow and Km. Lakshmi Agarwal, daughter, aged 6 months. The widow and the daughter both filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Ram Kishore Agarwal. The State of Uttar Pradesh contested the petition. Both the parties produced oral evidence. The Motor Accidents Claims' Tribunal on appraisal of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and the State was responsible for the act of its employee and as such it was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further held that the claimants were put to a loss of Rs. 1,53,795.34 paise and the State was liable to pay that amount as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation, they have therefore preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants urged that the amount determined by the Tribunal was inadequate as the Tribunal failed to take into account the increments which may have been earned by the deceased and the promotions which may have been granted to him. By passage of time the deceased would have drawn salary in higher grade and he would have contributed higher amount of money for the welfare of the claimants. Learned counsel further urged that the deduction of the amount of family pension as well as the deduction of the amount paid to the claimants on account of insurance policy and gratuity was not permissible.