HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3808 of 2008 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2. This instant appeal has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST), Baghpat in M.A.C.P. No. 33 of 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation has been awarded by the learned tribunal in favour of the respondent-claimants by ignoring certain relevant facts. The alleged incident had taken place on 11.02.2008 at about 4:00 p.m. The case of the respondent-claimants is that the deceased, namely, Shishpal, was standing on the side of the road when the offending Truck No. HR 58 2986, coming from the opposite direction, hit him. It was alleged that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 4. However, the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer reveals facts contrary to the case set up by the respondents. The said site plan indicates that the alleged accident occurred when the deceased, while riding his motorcycle, was crossing the road. A perusal of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer makes it evident that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, even if compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants, it was incumbent upon the learned tribunal to consider the contributory negligence of the deceased. 5. It was further submitted that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was employed as a Gram Vikas Adhikari and the compensation was awarded by Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deepak Singh, Jitendra Singh, S.K. Tripathi, Santosh Kumar Tripathi The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd .....Appellant(s) Smt. Suneeta And Others .....Respondent(s) taking into consideration his monthly income. However, the learned tribunal failed to take into account the fact that, after the death of the deceased, his wife was receiving family pension and was also appointed in place of her deceased husband under the Dying in Harness Rules. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation ought to have been computed after deducting the amount of family pension and the income being received by the claimant consequent upon the death of her husband. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that the testimony of the eyewitness, PW-2 Uma Shankar, is explicit on the point that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was not crossing the road but was standing on the side of the road. He submitted that the testimony of the eyewitness is substantive evidence and would prevail over the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. So far as the factum of the accident is concerned, the contention raised by the appellant is bereft of merit. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is of no evidentiary value unless it is duly proved in accordance with law. A site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is based either upon his own observation or upon the information furnished by a witness. In either case, if the appellant intended to rely upon the said site plan, it was incumbent upon him to establish the same in accordance with law. However, no witness was produced before the learned tribunal in support of the site plan. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 8. Further, the employment of the wife of the deceased after his death under the Dying in Harness Rules and her entitlement to receive family pension are not factors which are required to be taken into consideration while assessing compensation in a claim arising out of the death of a person in a motor vehicular accident. The right of the spouse or any other family member to receive family pension after the death of an employee and the right to obtain employment under the Dying in Harness Rules are independent rights. Such benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for or deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Therefore, the financial benefits received by the claimant consequent upon the death of the deceased, including family pension and appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, cannot deprive the claimants of their independent statutory right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by the learned FAFO No. 3808 of 2008 2 tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. September 9, 2026 Ujjawal FAFO No. 3808 of 2008 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad