ISSHAQ Vs. KULVINDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the impugned Judgment and Award dtd. 16/3/2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 143 of 2011 (Isshaq and others v. Kulvindar Singh and others), whereby for the untimely death of Asgar Ali in a road accident which occurred on 22/4/2011, a compensation of Rs.1,56,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants which has been ordered to be indemnified by the Insurer of the offending motor vehicle no. UP-22-M-7398.

(2.) Shri Abhishek Tripathi, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that at the time of the accident, Asgar Ali was driving his motorcycle No. UP-22-H- 4499 in a cautious manner at a slow speed on the left side of the road, and the offending motorcycle No. UP-22-M-7398 came towards the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle of Asgar Ali, causing grievous injuries to Asgar Ali, who died subsequently. Learned counsel submitted that in the accident, there was no contributory negligence of the deceased, but still, on the basis of the site plan and FIR, the tribunal concluded that there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident, which is a perverse finding. It was further submitted that the deceased was about 20 years old at the time of the accident and was a welder by occupation, who was earning Rs.15,000.00 per month, who was a skilled workman, but the tribunal assessed the compensation by taking his monthly income at Rs. 3,000.00 only, which is grossly inadequate. He further submitted that the tribunal did not award any amount of compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 14 for assessing the compensation, whereas a multiplier of 18 should have been applied, and further, awarded less compensation towards non-pecuniary heads and also awarded less interest on the compensation. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that no documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants before the tribunal, hence, the tribunal has awarded right amount of compensation to the claimants. It was further submitted that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, which was proved from the site plan prepared in the criminal case. As such, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the deceased contributed 50% towards the accident, which is not a perverse finding. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.