Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 187 of 2025 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Regional Office, Hazratganj Lko. Respondent :- Anita And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satyajit Banerji Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Instant First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2025 passed in Claim Petition No. 498 of 2020 Inre; Anita Vs. Anita Singh and Ors passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South, Lucknow whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,90,000/- in favour of the claimant. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that one Sri Satyendra Kumar who was working as a labourer for fixation of tiles died on account of an accident on 28.08.2020. 4. A claim petition was filed by the wife of the deceased vide Claim Petition No. 498 of 2020 Inre; Anita Vs. Anita Singh and Ors before the learned tribunal at Lucknow. 5. The learned tribunal vide award impugned has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7 % per annum in favour of the claimant. 6. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed. 7. While raising a challenge to the award impugned, Sri Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant has raised two arguments namely (a) that the learned tribunal has patently erred in holding that the deceased was a skilled labourer rather in the First Information Report that had been lodged by the father of the deceased namely Sri Sundar Lal Kannojiya it was indicated that he is working as a daily labour and thus there was no occasion for the learned tribunal to hold that the deceased was a skilled labour and to have awarded the compensation by taking the notional income on the said basis & (b) the learned tribunal has erred in law in also awarding interest on future prospects which would be against the judgment of this Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Seema Devi; Neutral Citation; 2024 AHC 104849. 8. No other ground has been urged. 9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. 10. The reasons are as follows:- 11. So far as ground (a) is concerned, suffice it to say that a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that in paragraph 28, the learned tribunal has considered the evidence of an eyewitness namely Sri Rakesh Kumar who said that on the fateful day, the deceased Sri Satyendra Kumar was working in the house of one Sri Raj Kumar and was affixing tiles. 12. The learned tribunal after considering the said statement of the witness has thus concluded that the fixing of tiles would be skilled work and consequently, has termed the working of deceased to be one of a skilled labour and has thus awarded compensation on the said basis. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly also invited attention of this Court towards affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar, the eye witness a copy of which is annexure 1 to the interim relief from which also it emerges that the deceased was in the work of fixation of tiles which goes without saying would be skilled work. 14. So far as reliance placed on the First Information Report that had been lodged pertaining to the accident apart from the fact that the First Information Report only indicates that the deceased was working as a daily labour yet it cannot be said that a tile worker cannot work as a daily wager. 15. The other aspect of the matter is that even if what has been indicated in the FIR is taken to be gospel truth yet keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Jai Deo Singh & Ors : 2010 SCC OnLine All 60 wherein it has been held that the trial in a criminal case and the proceedings of the learned tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act are governed by different laws, and the finding recorded by the police while recording a statement or while filing a charge sheet is not substantive evidence, in the absence of any corroborative evidence led by the appellant and accordingly, the said ground is rejected. 16. So far as ground (b) is concerned i.e no interest would be awarded in future prospects. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi Neutral Citation:- 2024 AHC-LKO- 82171 wherein this Court after considering its earlier judgment in the case of Smt.Seema Devi (supra) over which learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance has held that interest would also be payable on future prospect. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench