AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as the Corporation) against the claimants i.e. family members of the deceased died in a road accident. By preferring the appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad.
(2.) THE awarded amount is Rs. 2,51,800/- along with interest etc., which will be paid to the claimants proportionately pursuant to the direction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Corporation has raised various points before this Court. The vehicle was not involved in the accident. No adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant only on the ground of submission of charge sheet against the appellant/its driver. No adverse inference can be drawn against the testimony of the eye witness. The Tribunal has wrongly and illegally accepted testimony of the witness on the part of the claimants. It has been wrongly recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant did not produce any witness to contradict the claim of the claimants. Burden of proof regarding the income in fact lies with the claimants. Presumption of monthly income of Rs. 1,800/-, in absence of documentary evidence, is wrongful. The First Information Report had been lodged on 01st June, 2003, when the alleged accident took place on 25th May, 2003 but not immediately. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17 in absence of any documentary proof regarding the age of the deceased. The awarded amount is Rs. 2,51,800/-, which is highly excessive and without any justification. The Tribunal has awarded the amount in favour of the claimants on the realm of surmises and conjectures.
(3.) SRI Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has cited a judgment reported in (2003) 7 SCC 291 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani and another) to establish that many things mentioned in the site plan have been noted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the statements given by the witnesses will be clearly hit by Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 because that was based on statements of several witnesses not of his own. Therefore, what the Investigating Officer saw and noted alone would be admissible.;