High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 05 UK CK 0178

Suman Tyagi And Another vs Rajesh Singh And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 May 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal from Order No. 431 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 317 words

Alok Singh, J

1.

Present appeal is filed by the claimants appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in MACP No.of 2011.

2.

Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 4.10.2011, Ram Singh Tyagi was going on his Scooty bearing registration no. UK 07 AH 4487. Near Lehman Bridge, driver of truck bearing registration no. UA 07 H 6859 driving the truck rashly and negligently hit the Scooty of Ram Singh Tyagi. Ram Singh Tyagi received grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to hospital and before reaching the hospital, he died. Dependents of Ram Singh Tyagi filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. MACT allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- to the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, claimants approached this Court for enhancement.

3.

Heard Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants / claimants and Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

4.

Claimants have challenged the impugned awarded solely on the ground that the learned Tribunal has calculated the compensation on the basis of notional income whereas deceased was getting pension. Claimants have not produced any substantial document, which shows that deceased was getting pension. Claimants have only produced paper 4C2/9 issued by Senior Treasury Officer, Dehradun under his stamp. This paper in my opinion was not sufficient to prove that deceased was getting pension.

5.

Since claimants / appellants themselves failed to prove pension of the deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation on the basis of notional income.

6.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

7.

Let copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the trial court.