UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, H.K. House, Delhi Road, Meerut, against Smt. Rekha Singh and three others, claimants, as well as Raj Pal Goswami, respondent, challenging the legality and validity of judgment and Award dated 21.8.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut, in M.A.C.P. No. 217 of 2009, Smt. Rekha Singh and others Vs. Raj Pal Goswami and others, with this contention that the judgment is based on perverse findings of facts and is contrary to law as well as precedents.

(2.) The appellant-Insurance Company moved an application under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2009 thereby the appellant has, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, right to contest the claim on all grounds that are available to the insured owner. Deceased was employed as Senior Auditor in Sahkari Samiti, Panchayat Vibhag, Ghaziabad, and as per evidence on record his monthly salary was Rs. 13542.00 but the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation on the basis of his gross salary of Rs. 16,752.00 per month, which was absolutely illegal. The deductions towards Provident Fund was Rs. 3150.00 and Rs. 60.00 towards Insurance resulted in net monthly income of Rs. 13542.00 and as such the amount of compensation awarded on the basis of gross income of the deceased was excessive. The proof of age of deceased to be 55 years on the date of accident was not filed before the Tribunal, whereas the multiplier of 8 after taking into account the age of the deceased to be 55 years has been made. First information report of the accident was lodged against unknown vehicle and that too after two days of the accident. Postmortem examination on the dead body was not conducted, hence, the accident resulting death of deceased because of the accident made by the alleged offending vehicle No. U.P. 15Y 5312 was not proved. PW2 himself has denied to be a friend of the deceased and of PW1. PW1 has stated on oath that PW2, Kanak Singh, was not present at the time of accident, hence there were material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. This too was not taken into consideration. Award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum was highly excessive, hence this appeal.

(3.) Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.