Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


State Of U.P. And Others v. Mohd. Farooq And Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 495 of 1986 [2005] RD-AH 2858 (14 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.30

First Appeal From Order No.495 of 1986

State of U.P. and others Vs. Mohd. Farooq and others


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Learned standing counsel on behalf of the appellants and Shri Manu Singh learned counsel for the respondents-claimants are present.

This appeal has been filed under Section 100-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award-dated 9.8.1985 passed by the Presiding Officer of Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Deoria in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.78 of 1983.

The case of the claimants in brief is that while one Mohammad Isah whose vocation was of a barber and Jarrah was on his way to work, he was hit from behind by a police truck No.URX-9530 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver on 3.9.1983 at 1.30 p.m., the said truck belonged to the police department under the control and supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Deoria. Mohd. Isah died instantaneously on the spot leaving behind his widow, unmarried daughter, children and grand children.

The claim was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria and the objections were filed to the same by the State Government-appellants. The claim was contested on the ground that the deceased was an old man of 70 years and he was dependent on his family members and was penniless with no income of his own and it was because of his negligence he was hit by the vehicle. It was also stated in the objections that he himself was a burden on his family members and the amount of compensation claimed was highly excessive. Issues were framed and the Tribunal after going through the entire material on record came to the conclusion that truck driver was squarely responsible for driving rashly and negligently and the petitioner-deceased was not at all at fault. It arrived at a finding that deceased was of the age of 60 years and after taking into the totality of the facts and circumstances awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. In terms of the award Rs.12,000/- was to be paid to the unmarried minor daughter and Rs.12,000/- was to be paid to the widow and the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- was to be distributed equally amongst two sons each of whom will get Rs.3,000/- and an interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also awarded with effect from 27.10.1983 the date of the petition till the date of full and final payments.

Being aggrieved, the appellants have come before this Court challenging the award of the Tribunal merely on the ground that the compensation so awarded was excessive by wrongly treating the income of the deceased as Rs.500/- per month, which was arrived at on the basis of no evidence on record. The second ground was regarding the finding relating to the truck driver being based on surmises and conjectures was erroneous. No other ground has been raised in the appeal.  

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record, and I also find that the Tribunal has, after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and material on record and the relevant evidence, arrived at a well-reasoned award dated 9.8.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Derioa. The appellants have also not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award suffers from any illegality or perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. In view of this, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with special costs awarded at the rate of Rs.5,000/- which includes the costs throughout and the same shall be deposited by the appellants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria within a period of two months from today and shall be paid to the widow of the deceased, if still alive, otherwise to the remaining legal heirs of the deceased in terms and proportion of the award. It is also made clear that unpaid balance amount which has been kept in the fixed deposit under the security of the Tribunal, shall be released in favour of the claimants forthwith along with full interest having accrued thereupon in terms of the award accordingly.

With these observations and directions, the appeal is dismissed.

September 14, 2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.