YUVRAJ MISHRA Vs. SURJIT SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. This Court has granted enough time to Sri Shankar Suman, learned counsel for the respondent-owner who has been primarily held responsible but he has failed to appear on several occasions. Hence, I have no other option but to decide the appeal in his absence.

(2.) By way of this appeal, the appellant who has died during the pendency of the appeal has been substituted by his heirs. The deceased appellant has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21988 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Judge, Badaun (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No.3 of 1986 filed by the original appellant Yuvraj Misra for the death of Smt. Phoolwati wido of Sri Salig Ram Misra who died out of the vehicular accident.

(3.) The respondent No.3 filed its reply in the claim petition contending that the petitioner was not the legal representative and was not the heir of the deceased and that he had not obtained probate. He has concocted the allegation. He was not the legal heir of the deceased and that he was not staying with the deceased when the accident took place and that the petition was barred by time and that the appellant was not dependent on the deceased and it cannot be said to have suffered any monetary loss due to death of Smt. Phoolwati and has contended that the age of the deceased was not 45 but was 80 years. It is denied that she was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as she was aged and incapable to move properly due to old age. Her eye-sight was also very poor. She did not have any landed property in her name nor any other financial aid or property in her own name and so the question of cultivation of agricultural property does not arise.