Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82580 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 137 of 2012 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Pramod Kumar Agrawal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Vashistha Tiwari Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 29.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Deoria in MACP No.493 of 2010, whereby the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,16,500/- alongwith 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the death of one Chanda Devi in an accident on 15.11.2010 with Jeep No.52C/9854. 3. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the alleged accident had taken place by offending vehicle No.52C/9854. It is contended that the date of accident in the claim petition and the First Information Report are different which establishes that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding the liability of the appellant insurance company to pay compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also excessive inasmuch as in absence of any evidence on record with regard to proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income for computing the compensation. 4. Be that as it may, the Tribunal while holding that the alleged accident had taken place by offending vehicle has considered the fact that the offending vehicle was caught on the spot of the accident and the Tribunal has further placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.2 in concluding that the accident had taken place by offending vehicle. The insurance company did not file any evidence to rebut the testimony of P.W.2. 5. Since the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle is based upon unrebutted evidence on record, therefore the finding returned by the Tribunal is a finding of fact on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have taken the notional income in computing the compensation is concerned, the record reveals that the Tribunal has given cogent reason in concluding the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month. Even otherwise the Tribunal has not awarded future prospect whereas the claimants-respondents are entitled to future prospect. In such view of the fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. 7. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad