AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) U .P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rajapur, Allahabad (UPSRTC) has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2009 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,95,800/- on the basis of the income ascertained by the Court as Rs. 2,700/- per month, one-third of which has deducted and Court has arrived at compensation to such sum. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Court arrived at a figure of monthly income without any basis but an assessment of income.
(2.) WE are of the view that for assessing just compensation, sometimes in absence of direct proof such assessment is required and we do not find the awarded amount of compensation is on the higher side. The learned counsel strongly contended that on the basis of the statement of the evidence of the eye-witness that the accident took place on the mid of the road but the learned Judge has ignored such fact and made UPSIDC responsible totally.
(3.) WE have gone through the sketch map of the place of accident, from which it appears that the deceased was coming by cycle from up side to down and the bus was going down to up and met with the accident. Although the place of the accident, as indicated even in the road map, cannot be said to be on the roadside but on the road but it is very difficult to ignore the liability of the Corporation only on the basis of such evidence when the sketch map has been prepared by the police, being independent agency. Any material available from the custody of the police cannot be ignored in assessing the compensation in motor accident claim cases by holding that the same cannot be taken to be absolute since allegedly it has prepared by them under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Factually, the driver has been charge-sheeted, therefore, the evidential value of the record of the police cannot be said bare or mere statement of the witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, to arrive at a just compensation, the Tribunal has to look into various aspects. It is true to say that statement of the eye-witness will have an evidential value but at the same time, it must be remembered that the accident was happened in the night when it is difficult to meticulously differentiate between road and roadside. Moreover, jugglery of words in the examination cannot also be absolute. The sketch map of the place of accident does not say that accident took place by the side of the road but by such statement, no negligence can be attributed to the deceased cyclist. This sketch map also become the part and parcel of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal and no challenge has been thrown by the appellant before the Tribunal with regard to the validity of such sketch map, as raised herein. Therefore, in totality, we do not find any genuine reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal hence the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost.;