Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) -The claimant-deceased Sri Sensar Pal was going to his village on 8.9.2004 by a tractor trolley bearing No. U.P.-15-F/2008. At about 8.45 p.m. a passenger bus No. D.L. 1-P/1898 which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed coming from the opposite direction dashed the tractor trolley with a great force resulting in the death of Sri Sensar Pal and the tractor was also broken into two pieces. Claimants-respondents filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 931 of 2004 being the dependants of the deceased claiming Rs. 14 lacs as compensation. The same was contested by the opposite party-appellant (owner of Bus No. D.L. 1-P/1898) on the ground that the vehicle No. D.L.-1-P/1898 was not plied on the road on the date of accident due to some mechanical defects but the Bus No. U.P. 15-E/0222 was being plied on the same route on the date of accident. That the monthly income of the deceased was claimed as Rs. 6,000 per month by agriculture and selling of milk without any basis. Secondly, the tractor trolley was also guilty of contributory negligence and thirdly that the travelling in the tractor trolley was not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Lastly, that the income of the deceased was not correct. Evidence was led.
(2.) THE Tribunal after hearing the parties on the basis of record available, allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,21,500 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. D.L.1-P/1898 by the driver due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and consequently died. That the other vehicle Bus No. U.P.15-E/0222 was not involved in the said accident and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the tractor. THE vehicle No. D.L.1-P/1898 was seized by the police and for the release of the same an application was moved on 20.9.2004 by the owner of the vehicle. THE Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month treating him to be in the category of labourer with an earning of Rs. 100-125 per day and applied the multiplier of 13 while granting the compensation. Being aggrieved, the appellant-vehicle owner has filed the present appeal. The respondents-claimants filed caveat and appeared through their counsel Sri Nigmendra Shukla.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, and after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and material on record and the relevant evidence, the Tribunal arrived at a well reasoned award dated 17.1.2007. The appellant has also not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award suffers from any illegality or material irregularity. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the award under challenge. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, no order is passed as to costs.;