PARSHANT ALIAS PINTU Vs. SHANNO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, and, also the claimants, are, all aggrieved, by the award rendered, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., upon MACP No. 44-II/2013/2012, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 11,01,000/-, stood awarded, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, thereon stood levied interest, at, the rate of 8% per annum, and, was ordered to commence from the date of petition, and, till realization, of, the afore compensation amount. The apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon, registered owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for, the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle rather restricts his challenge, vis-a-vis, the impugned award, (a) only qua the rendering, of, hence affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1. In making the afore espousal, he submits, that the dependence, made, by the learned tribunal, upon, the FIR embodied in Ex.PW1/A, in its hence rendering the afore findings, rather being a gross mis-dependence, (b) as, the testification, rendered by RW-1 benumbs, the evidentiary worth, if any, of the afore exhibit. However, the afore addressed submission before this Court, is, misplaced, (c) as PW-1, who during the course of his examination-in-chief, rather enabled exhibition, of, the apposite FIR, and, whereon an exhibit mark, bearing Ex.PW1/A was embossed, (d) and, when perusal thereof hence makes trite articulations qua ascription(s), of, culpable negligence being qua one Prashant Singh alias Pintu, (e) and, with the afore echoings occurring in Ex.PW1/A, remaining unscathed, during, the course of his being subjected to the ordeal, of, a rigorous cross-examination, (f) rather contrarily when, in course thereof, no suggestion(s) stood meted to him, for, hence, repulsing the afore echoings borne in Ex.PW1/A, nor with any independent ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence being adduced, (g) rather begets an inference qua the appellant herein acquiescing qua the afore echoings hence holding veracity. Dehors an inference, of, acquiescence, vis-a-vis, the truth, of, the narration, borne in Ex.PW1/A, being erectable, for, hence, ousting the afore propagation reared before this Court, by the counsel, for the appellant, and, when the afore acquiescence, was, erodable, vis-a-vis, its efficacy, by rendition of, an uneroded ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence. However, with RW-1 being an interested witness, and, his solitarily testifying in support, of, the afore espousal qua the relevant vehicle, at the relevant stage, being driven by the deceased, and, rather the latter being negligent, when, reiteratedly is unaccompanied, by any independent ocular account, renders it being construable, to, be a stained and vitiated narration, and, further does enable this Court, to conclude, that (h) the amplitude of the afore acquiescence, both drowning, and, underwhelming, the effects, if any, of, the solitarily testification, rendered by RW-1. Consequently, the submission, of the learned counsel appearing for the registered owner, is rejected.

(3.) The claimants, through, FAO No. 191 of 2019, sought enhancement of compensation, from, the sums computed in the impugned award, to a sum, as espoused in the extant appeal. The learned tribunal, had, in the impugned award, determined the per mensem income, of deceased, to be borne in a sum of Rs.7,500/-, and, the afore income was concluded, to, stand generated, from his avocation, as a carpenter/contractor. Even the afore computations, were made, on anvil of the testification rendered by PW-3, yet the afore computation, is, not made strictly, within the rule, of, hence, wholesome appreciation, of, evidence comprised, in the examination-in-chief, and, in the cross-examination, of, the apposite witness. Preeminently, when the afore witness, in his testification, comprised in his examination-in-chief, and, as borne in his affidavit, tendered during the course thereof, and, whereon exhibit mark bearing Ex.PW3/A, stand, embossed, rendering clear echoings qua his deceased son hence performing the work of carpenter, and, also his being engaged in deploying other carpenter(s) along with him, for executing works of carpentry. The afore testification, though, remained uneroded of its efficacy, yet, the learned tribunal while construing, that, hence with his being a skilled workman, rather computed his per mensem derivation, of income therefrom, hence, in a sum of Rs.7,500/-. The afore computation, as, aforestated, is beyond the rule, of a wholesome appreciation, of the evidence, as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, of PW-3, and, in his cross-examination, and, rather adherence, vis-a-vis, the afore rule hence prods this Court, to conclude (a) qua when, his testification borne in his examination-in-chief, wherein, he has testified qua his deceased son, earning an income of Rs.20,000/- from his performing, the work of carpentry, as also, from his deploying workers, for, executing the contracted carpentry works, is uneroded of its vigour, hence, this Court is constrained to conclude, that, the deceased was drawing an income of Rs.20,000/- per mensem, from, his afore avocation.