Niwash vs Shayamveer Singh Tomar

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sri Niwash for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Room No. 2, Firozabad in M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 2008, Shri Niwash v. Shayamveer Singh Tomar and another. The impugned award is assailed on the ground that accident on 21.4.2008 took place occurred due to negligence of the driver of Mahendra Max No. MP-30T/0133 but the evidence produced by the appellant before the Trial Court in this regard has not been considered by the aforesaid Tribunal. According to the Counsel the claimant is a farmer and earns about Rs. 7,000/- per month from agriculture and sale of milk.

The appellant is 27 years'' old who claims to have met with an accident on 21.4.2008 at 4.30 p.m. at triangular junction near Nandgava Pinahat Road, Mahuashala when he was going on motorcycle No. UP-83-F/8521 from Mahua Shala to Kanpur. The case was contested by the insurance company which neither produced any witness nor filed any documentary evidence.

It appears from the award that Tribunal has framed five issues to decide the matter, which are as under:

The Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Mahendra Max Jeep, in which there was no contributory negligence of the appellant; that the driver of the jeep was having a valid license and that the offending vehicle- Mahendra Max Jeep was duly insured by the National Insurance Company. The last issue regarding quantum of compensation only requires our consideration. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that amount awarded is too less because the claim of the appellant pertaining to loss of alleged income @ Rs. 7,000/- per month for 10 months has not been considered, which he would have suffered due to his mental illness on account of the accident. The claim of the appellant as noted in the impugned order is:

We find from the record that Tribunal has considered the question of quantum of compensation and has allowed almost all the claims of the appellant thus:

The Tribunal has only declined the claim of the appellant for loss of income as he could not pursue his vocation for 10-months due to mental disability so it would result in loss of Rs. 70,000/-.

This argument of the appellant is based on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures. The appellant has not filed any document showing that he has suffered such mental illness. On the contrary he has appeared before the Tribunal as P.W. 1 where his statement has been recorded and he has also been cross-examined, therefore, probable permanent mental illness could not be proved by him. Thus, we do not find any force in the contention of the appellant. For all the reasons stated above, appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.