J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the non -claimant -appellant under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 23/04/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer in claim case No. 445/2006 (358/2006) whereby an award of Rs. 21,95,469/ - along with interest has been passed against the appellant.
(2.) The brief facts which can be noticed for disposal of the present appeal is that one Mr. Surendra Kumar Parakh who was working as a Lecturer with Shramjeevi College, Ajmer and while he was coming back from Rajasthan Public Service Commission met with an accident on 01/04/2006 at about 3.P.M while he was driving his Scooter bearing No. RGZ -18, when suddenly one vehicle (Tavera) bearing No. RJ -01 -UA -0145 came and hit the Scooter from the back side, as a result of which, Mr. Surendra Kumar Parakh fell down and received severe injuries and on account of which he died on the spot. FIR bearing No. 52/2006 to this effect also came to be lodged under Sec. 279 & 304A of IPC in the Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer and thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. The deceased was stated to be 59 years of age and was earning Rs. 60,000/ - per month and in addition to the salary being drawn by him from Shramjeevi College, Ajmer, he being an invigilator/examiner in various institutions was earning certain other income. Claim to the extent of Rs. 69,54,220/ - was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal analyzing the various factors and material available on record and after going through the statements of the witnesses, FIR & charge sheet, etc. framed as many as five issues and all were decided in favour of the claimants/respondents awarding claims to the extent of Rs. 21,95,469/ - along with interest which has been assailed by the appellant -Insurance Company in the present appeal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of Scooter driver Mr. Surendra Kumar Parakh who was going on a wrong side and even at the peak time of 3 P.M which is the day time and insofar as Ajmer is concerned, quite busy but there was no eye witnesses and only placing reliance on statements of his own daughter Kumari Ambika, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was negligence of the driver of Tavera rather than the deceased himself. He further contended that merely on the assumption and presumption, the Tribunal has gone into this issue and the facts speak otherwise. He further contended that the deceased was 59 years of age and was to retire within a year, therefore, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He further contended that no authentic documents with regard to income was filed and merely photo copy of Form -16 was placed on record which has been accepted by the Tribunal without any further going into the merits and contended that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and needs consideration.;