Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113703 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1242 of 2020 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Madhu And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Subash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Sushil Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellant by means of present appeal has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar in MAC No.16 of 2018 (Smt. Madhu & another Vs. Aas Mohammad & others). 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and without any basis. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 20 years and contradictory stands was taken by the respondent/claimants with regard to the occupation of the deceased and there was no substantial proof of income of the deceased yet, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per months. It is contended that in such view of the fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that the deceased was skilled labour inasmuch as he was a Mason (Rajmishtri) and this fact was proved by PW-4 as there was no evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of PW-4. Therefore, the finding returned by the Tribunal on the income of the deceased is based on proper evidence on record and thus, being finding of the fact does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Be that as it may, the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased relying on the testimony of PW-4 concluded that the deceased was skilled labour as he was a Mason. The testimony of PW-4 is unrebutted. The Tribunal has also relied upon the testimony of PW-3, who also stated that the deceased was a Mason. The testimony of PW-3 is also unrebutted as appellant did not lead any evidence on record to rebut the testimony of PW-3 since it has been proved on record by PW-3 and PW-4 that the deceased was a Mason and considering the fact that the alleged incident had taken place on 24.11.2017, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in law in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation. 6. Thus, for the reasons given above, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad