IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 71 of 2008 Smt. Kaushalya Devi & others … Appellants Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 72 of 2008 Smt. Shanta Devi & others … Appellants Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri Vijay Khanduri, Advocate for the appellants Sri P.C. Maulkhi, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, these appeals are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. Appeal Nos. 71 of 2008 and 72 of 2008 filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the claimants/appellants against the judgments and award dated 22.10.2007 in M.A.C.P. Case No. 40 of 2006 and 48 of 2006 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.2006, the deceased persons, namely, Shiv Singh Chauhan and Surendra Singh were going from Karanprayag to Sarmola in vehicle No. UA11/0391. According to the claim petition, at about 04:30, when the said vehicle reached near Village Sarmola, Patwari Bamoth, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question, it met with an accident, in which, the deceased Shiv Singh and Surendra Singh died at the spot. 2 The postmortems of the deceased were conducted at District Hospital, Gopeshwar. According to the claim petitions, Shiv Singh Chauhan was 37 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month by doing the business of agriculture, milk and contract work and Sri Surendra Singh was 23 years of age and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing the business of tent house and milk work. The claimants of Shiv Singh claimed Rs. 10,40,000/- and the claimants/dependents of Surendra Singh claimed Rs. 10,50,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal concerned. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petitions by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has pleaded therein that the vehicle in question was being plied without having valid papers, registration certificate, driving licence, insurance policy etc. therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. Sri Nizakat Khan – owner of the vehicle also contested the claim petition alleging therein that the vehicle in question was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. and all the documents pertaining the vehicle in question were valid on the date of accident. 5. Sri Rai Singh – driver of the vehicle in question alleged in his written statement that he was having the valid driving licence on the date of accident. He has further alleged that he was engaged for loading the cement and stones at Dogidang. When the deceased persons unloaded the material, suddenly, parapet wall fell down and the accident took place, in which both the loaders/deceased were died. 3 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in both the appeals in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the actual date of payment vide judgments and orders dated 22.10.2007. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred both the appeals before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 8. Heard Sri Vijay Khanduri, Advocate for the appellants, Sri P.C. Maulkhi, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal without going through the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of ‘no fault liability’. He has further submitted that the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 has committed an error by not taking into account the rash and negligent driving of the driver and awarded the compensation in favour of the claimants in no fault liability. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be dismissed and compensation shall be awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants as per Schedule. 4 10. Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the truck in question was standing in order to unload the material and suddenly, the parapet wall broken down and the truck in question fell into the ditch, therefore, the Tribunal awarded the amount under the ‘no fault liability’ and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is absolutely justified, which need not require any interference. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount under the ‘no fault liability’. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have perused the statement of D.W.1 – Rai Singh – driver of the truck in question who has stated that at the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was standing and the deceased persons were unloading the material. On the date of accident, it was raining due to which the parapet wall fell down and the truck in question met with an accident. From the perusal of the evidence available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. Learned counsel for the appellants could not produce any evidence in support of this case before the Tribunal, which may show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. From the perusal of the evidence of Mohan Singh (P.W.2) who nowhere stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record rightly held that there is no mistake of the driver, while the accident took place due to fallen of parapet wall. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal after going 5 through the facts and circumstances of the case come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in ‘no fault liability’. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Both the appeals are rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. No. 72 of 2008. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.11.2008 ASWAL