Prakash Krishna - (1.) -This appeal is under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award dated 20.2.1982 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah in Motor Accident Claim No. 2706 of 1977. A claim petition by the respondents herein, was filed for recovery of Rs. 60,000 as compensation against the appellants herein, with the allegations that the deceased Smt. Ram Devi wife of Awadh Behari died in an accident at about 3.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. C.P.H.-8138 driven by Ram Charan, appellant No. 2 herein. The said claim petition was contested by the appellants by denying the averments made in the claim petition. The claim petition was allowed in part for recovery of Rs. 54,000 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree upto the date of payment.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list. Sri Sameer Sharma urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal under issue No. 1 that the driver was negligent in driving the bus in question at the time of the accident is against the material on record. He further submitted that the compensation awarded is towards higher side. Considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has examined the evidence on record minutely and has rightly believed the oral testimony produced by the claimant-respondents. P.W. 3. Tainy Babu. The statement has been believed and rightly so, as it finds corroboration from the first information report which was lodged without any delay. He is the eye-witness of the accident and has deposed that the deceased Smt. Ram Devi was sitting on her box inside the bus stand campus facing towards South and bus No. C.P.H. 8138 came from behind and dashed against Smt. Ram Devi, as a result of which, she died immediately. The argument of the appellants' counsel that Tainy Babu (P.W. 3), being relative of the deceased, his statement should not be accepted, has got no force. Further plea that the deceased herself was guilty of contributory negligence and the Claims Tribunal ought to have apportioned the amount of compensation has also got no merit. Looking to the nature of accident, it cannot be said that the deceased in any manner contributed to the accident. She was not at all responsible for the accident.
(3.) THE other finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of age of the deceased and income etc. are based on threadbare analysis of the evidence produced by the parties. No mistake, either of law or fact, could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the appreciation of evidence, as done by the Tribunal. Lastly, it was urged that the award of Rs. 35,000 towards loss of love and affection due to the death of the deceased towards her son and daughters at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per head is excessive. In this connection reliance has been placed on Agya Kaur and others v. General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others, 1980 ACJ 306 (PandH) ; State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Lal Kochhar and others, 1980 ACJ 437 (HP) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vanitha Nandakumar Gurav and others, 1993 (3) TAC 776 (Kant).;