- (1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the compensation, against the judgment and award dated 15.3.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Claim Petition No. 15 of 2011 (Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another v. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. and Others). The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2010, at about 9.00 a.m., Sri Vijendra Singh was going on his motorcycle bearing number U.P. 31 P 7202 along with his father Sri Chandrika Singh. When he reached near village Oyal Police Chauki, from the opposite direction, a tractor bearing number U.P. 31M 3029 was coming, whose driver was driving it carelessly, rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle which resulted serious injuries to Sri Vijendra Singh and Sri Chandrika Singh. Both persons were admitted in the hospital. The tractor and its driver were detained by the crowd and later, they were handed over to the police. Sri Vijendra Singh died in the hospital on the same day. An FIR was lodged belatedly i.e. 26.10.2010. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, who has considered the accident as composite accident in the ratio of 75% and 25%. So, the total compensation of Rs. 2,06,500 was distributed in the same ratio. Thus, the claimant -appellants got a sum of Rs. 1,54,875 along with interest @ 7% per annum. Not being satisfied, the appellant -claimants have filed the instant appeal.
(2.) WITH this background, Mr. Dev Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the parents of the deceased and very old persons. They are ailing persons suffering from various diseases. So, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may kindly be enhanced. He also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted the huge amount by observing that the accident was due to contributory negligence. It is the sole liability of the tractor. The interest @ 7% is highly unjust and improper. Lastly, he made a request for enhancement of the compensation.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is undisputed. On the date of accident, the deceased and the tractor driver were holding valid driving licence. The tractor was insured by the Insurance Company -opposite party No. 1 and on the date of accident, policy was alive. After examining the entire evidence and site plan, the Tribunal observed that the accident was due to contributory negligence. The accident occurred on Lakhimpur -Sitapur road, where sufficient space was available for motorcycle to avoid the accident. In the absence of any adverse material, there is no reason to deviate from the finding observed by the Tribunal that the accident was due to contributory negligence. It was claimed by the appellant -claimant that the deceased was working in a brick -kiln at the salary of Rs. 3500 per month. To this effect a certificate was given by the owner of the brick -kiln and the Tribunal has accepted the same. In the absence of any age proof, the Tribunal determined the age of the claimant as 65 years old. By looking the age of 65 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. The deceased was unmarried. So, the half amount was deducted for personal expenditure. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 for funeral charges and Rs. 10,000 for loss of estate. The award was divided in the ratio of contributory negligence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same appears reasonable. The interest @ 7% was awarded. By looking the bank interest on fix deposits at the relevant time, the same is also reasonable. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. In the result, at the admission stage, appeal filed by the appellant -claimant is dismissed.;