Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90665 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1874 of 2014 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Mamta Soni And 4 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Tripathi 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 16.04.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Mahoba in MACP No.103 of 2012, whereby the the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the death of one Uma Shankar Soni in an accident on 20.04.2012. 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident had taken place on 20.04.2012 and the deceased had died on 16.06.2012. It is submitted that it is established on record that the death was not caused due to injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident, and therefore, the appellant-insurance company cannot be fastened liability to pay compensation. He contends that it is the accident of two vehicles namely, motorcycle No.UP96A/7880 and Tavera No.UP90D/1177 coming from opposing directions. 4. It is submitted that motorcycle was being driven by the deceased and the manner in which the accident had taken place clearly proves that the accident was result of contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should have been reduced to the extent of negligence of the deceased. Lastly, it is urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident on 20.04.2012 and the death occurred due to injuries suffered by him in the accident. It is contended that the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident is not denied by the claimant/respondents, and the Tribunal has considered this fact and held that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. 6. He further contends that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-2 to conclude that the alleged accident had taken place due to the negligence of driver of Tavera. It is submitted that the insurance company did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of P.W.-2 and thus, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 7. Be that as it may, the factum of accident as well as the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident is not denied by the insurance company. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the death of the deceased was not on account of the injuries suffered by the deceased. 8. The Tribunal has recorded a finding after appreciating the evidence on record that the deceased had died due to grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident. The finding of the Tribunal on the said issued is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 9. So far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-2 and other documentary evidence on record to conclude that the accident was result of sole negligence of driver of Tavera. 10. The insurance company did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of P.W.-2 who categorically deposed that the accident was the result of sole negligence of driver of Tavera. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 11. So far as the issue of quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,67,000/- alongwith interest as compensation which in the opinion of the Court cannot be said to be excessive. 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad