# State of U.P v. Chhuttan Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-18
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 3792 of 2017
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-chhuttan-lal-ors-45161
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Claimants mother, father and
one minor brother - deceased was an
auto mechanic - monthly income of
deceased assessed to Rs.3000/- annual
income Rs.36,000/- After slicing off 2/3
of
the
same,
it
was
pegged
to
Rs.24,000/- multiplicand of 8 was applied
- which after multiplication aggregated to
Rs.1,92,000/-
and
Rs.2000/-
was
awarded as funeral expenses - Claim
Tribunal directed compensation amount
to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- along with
8% interest to be realized from opposite
party no.2 ( appellant herein) - Held - no
infirmity - appeal dismissed (Para 17)
Appeal dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Chhuttan Lal & Ors.
1101
having entered reference on that date. He
entered
reference
on
20.11.2004.
Computed from the first date fixed in
arbitration, he had time upto 19 March
2005 to make the award as his four month
mandate survived till then. In absence of
any earlier date being shown to exist, on
which the learned arbitrator applied his
mind to the subject matter of dispute put
up for arbitration, the award made on
19.03.2005, appears to have been made
within time and it also does not suffer
from any defect of limitation.

52. Appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly
dismissed.
Interim
order
granted earlier is vacated.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1101

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

FAFO No. 3792 of 2017

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Chhuttan Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Vishvakarma, Sri Rajeev K.
Srivastava

A. Civil Law-Claimants mother, father and
one minor brother - deceased was an
auto mechanic - monthly income of
deceased assessed to Rs.3000/- annual
income Rs.36,000/- After slicing off 2/3
of
the
same,
it
was
pegged
to
Rs.24,000/- multiplicand of 8 was applied
- which after multiplication aggregated to
Rs.1,92,000/-
and
Rs.2000/-
was
awarded as funeral expenses - Claim
Tribunal directed compensation amount
to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- along with
8% interest to be realized from opposite
party no.2 ( appellant herein) - Held - no
infirmity - appeal dismissed (Para 17)
Appeal dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
appellant,
learned
counsel
for
the
claimant-respondents and perused the
material brought on record.

2. By way of the instant appeal,
challenge has been made to the award and
order dated 15.09.2009 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal / Additional
District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura, in
Motor Accident Claim Case No.29 of
2008 Chhuttan Lal Vs. Jeep Chalak Jeep
No.UP 70 S 5228, Maan Singh and
another whereby compensation amount to
the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- along with 8%
interest was directed to be realized from
opposite party no.2, (the present appellant
herein) in this appeal.

3. Brief reference of the relevant
facts of the case as discernible from the
certified copy of the impugned award
appears to be that the accident took place
on 16.10.2007 at 5:30 pm at Tank
Crossing, Mathura while the deceased was
proceeding towards his home by scooter
no. U.P. 81 F 0840 along with Mormukut
Yadav, Advocate when the Government
Jeep No.U.P.70 S 5228 being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the same
with the aforesaid scooter due to which the
deceased Harish Chandra succumbed to
his injury while he was being taken to the
hospital at Mathura.
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4.

The
claimant-respondents
preferred the claim petition before the
Tribunal whereby it was claimed that the
deceased Harish Chandra was bread earner
for the entire family and he was head of
his family. After his sudden demise, there
is no one to look after family of the
deceased. The claimant-respondents are
mother, father and one minor brother. The
deceased was an auto mechanic. He used
to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Under
various heads, Rs.38,40,000/- was sought
to be realized from the present appellant.

5. The claim petition was contested
and both the parties raised their respective
pleadings on the basis of which relevant
issues were framed by the Tribunal.

6. Issue no.1 related to the point of
the accident in question as to whether the
accident in question was caused on
16.10.2007 at 5:30 pm at Tank Crossing
Mathura by rash and negligent driving of
the aforesaid jeep by its driver rashly and
negligently due to which it dashed with the
scooter of the deceased Harish Chandra,
consequently, he sustained injury and
succumbed to it while on way to the
hospital at Mathura ?

7. Issue no.2 related to the quantum
of compensation to be given to the
claimant-respondents then its proportion?

8. Issue no.3 also related to the point
of
compensation
to
the
claimantrespondents?

9.

The
claimant-respondents
produced
Mormukut
Yadav
PW-1,
Chandra Bhan PW-2 and Chhuttan Lal
PW-3 and also produced documentary
evidence by moving list 6-C, which
contained relevant papers, apart from
producing papers vide 7-C/1 to 9C and 31C to 36 C.

10. The opposite parties got
examined Man Singh DW-1, driver of the
aforesaid offending jeep. Thereafter, the
Tribunal
upon
consideration
of
the
submissions of both the parties and upon
evaluation of the evidence on record,
partly awarded the claim along with
interest against the appellant.

11. Consequently, this appeal.

12. Crux contention raised on behalf
of the appellant is that in this case, proper
evaluation / assessment of the situation on
the spot was not made by the Tribunal, for
specific reason that the road was being
constructed on that date when the accident
took place while the deceased scooterist
was himself driving the scooter on the
wrong side and he suddenly came and
crossed the offending jeep due to which
the jeep driver applied his brake but in the
meanwhile,
the
deceased
scooterist
himself driving the scooter at high speed
dashed the scooter with the jeep.

13. To vindicate his claim, learned
counsel for the appellant has engaged
attention of the Court to the testimony of
Maan Singh DW-1, driver of the offending
vehicle and has claimed that evidence so
tendered by the driver of the offending
vehicle was truthful and trustworthy,
however, it was wrongly disbelieved by
the Tribunal and the version of Mormukut
Yadav was taken to be correct, whereas,
he being an Advocate was well versed to
suit
the
interest
of
the
claimantrespondents. The amount awarded as
compensation is excessive and the rate of
interest is also at enhanced rate than was
required to be applied and the proper
2 All. Smt. Leelawati & Ors. Vs. The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lko.
1103
interest would have been fixed at the rate
of 7% instead of 8%.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for
the claimant-respondents has supported the
finding of the Tribunal and claimed that
the amount of the impugned award under
facts and circumstances of the case is
justified.

15. Considered the rival submissions
apart from testimony available on record.

16. Obviously, there are two
witnesses namely Mormukut Yadav
PW-1 and Maan Singh PW-2. Insofar
as testimony of PW-1 is concerned, it
cannot be said that PW-1 being an
Advocate was highly interested person
and biased in favour of the claimantrespondents. However, it was duty of
every witness to come out with truth as
to what was seen by him on the spot.
No doubt, testimony of PW-1 is
exposed to cross examination to be
carried out by the other side.

17. However, I have also perused
testimony of PW-1 wherein nothing
adverse as claimed was found, on the
other hand cross examination of DW-2
done
on
behalf
of
the
claimant
respondents throws certain doubt on
the claim raised regarding mistake of
the deceased himself in the accident.
Apart from that, monthly income of the
deceased under facts and circumstances
of the case was found to be proper. The
monthly income of the deceased was
assessed to Rs.3000/- Consequently,
annual income was Rs.36,000/-. After
slicing off 2/3 of the same, it was
pegged
to
Rs.24,000/-.
While
considering the dependency factor and
primarily age of the parents of the
deceased,
multiplicand
of
8
was
applied to the aforesaid annual income
Rs.24,000/- which after multiplication
aggregated
to
Rs.1,92,000/-
and
Rs.2000/- was awarded as funeral
expenses. The total amount so fixed
was Rs.1,94,000/-. Insofar as rate of
interest is concerned, it cannot be said
to be excessive when the accident took
place admittedly in the year 2007.
After overall assessment of the award
impugned and the entire interest, no
infirmity is perceptible as such and the
present appeal sans merits and is
dismissed.

18.

However,
Rs.25,000/-
deposited by the appellant at this stage
shall be remitted to the Tribunal
concerned
for
adjustment
of
the
distribution
of
the
amount
of
compensation directed as above.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1103

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Misc. Single No. 2785 of 2008
with
Misc. Single No. 4111 of 2008
& with
Misc. Single No. 4110 of 2008

Smt. Leelawati & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lko.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ram Raj

Counsel for the Respondent: