LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-130

SHARDA YADAV Vs. M.SHRINIWAS RAO

Decided On December 18, 2019
SHARDA YADAV Appellant
V/S
M.Shriniwas Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rakesh Bahadur for the Insurance company. None appears for the owner.

(2.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Smt. Sharda Yadav, who is widow of the deceased against the award dated 21.11.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Ghazipur wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,15,512/-as compensation. The Insurance company has filed the cross objection challenging the compensation as well as the finding of negligence by the Tribunal.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the litigation on 9.12.2003 at about 11.40 when deceased was drawing his cycle, a truck bearing No. AP 16 T 7899 came from behind very rashly and negligently dashed the deceased from behind. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while he was being taken to the hospital. The deceased was serving in the education department and was earning about 12,000/- per month. His age of retirement was 62 years. The deceased was survived by his widow who has filed the claim petition. The respondent owner driver did not appear before the Tribunal did they appeared before this Court. The Tribunal framed five issues and answered in favour of the claimant appellant but the claimant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. The claimant appellant examined four witnesses and filed several documents namely FIR, Post mortem, family register, Charge sheet by way of certificate 37 G, salary certificated of the deceased was filed. The insurance cover note, permit of the truck, driving license of the driver of the truck, the insurance company vehemently contested the claim and here the insurance has filed cross objection recently contending that the driver of the truck was not negligent and that the claimant has not proved the negligence. The compensation awarded is on higher side. It is further contended that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.