Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88211 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2205 of 2014 Appellant :- Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Leelawati Since Deceased And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Lal Chandra Sahu Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Order on Cross Objection/Counter Claim No.187 of 2022 1. Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that he does not want to press the cross objection/counter claim dated 16.08.2022 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 2. Accordingly, the cross objection dated 16.08.2022 is dismissed as not pressed. Order on Appeal 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Bareilly in M.A.C.P. No.390 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,87,548.00/- (Rupees Twelve Lacks Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fourty Eight) along with six percent interest as compensation to respondent no.2. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, the counsel for the appellant has contended that the involvement of offending vehicle namely 'Tata Magic' bearing No. UP-26-E-2458 (in short 'vehicle in question') is concocted and fabricated one. It is contended that the FIR of the incident has been lodged after a delay of five days, therefore, it is evident that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the incident. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, inasmuch as in the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was a 'Retired Soldier' and was drawing pension. In addition to the income of pension, he was doing some additional work and was getting remuneration. It is contended that after the death of the deceased, the wife of the deceased was also getting family pension and, therefore, the amount of family pension, which the wife of the deceased was getting, after death of the deceased, should have been reduced for the purpose of commutation of compensation. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents would contend that the Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, held that the incident had taken place by the vehicle in question. It is contended that the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the vehicle in question is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of testimony of P.W.-2, the eye-witness and thus this Court may not interfere with the finding of fact on the issue of involvement of vehicle in the incident. It is further contended that even if the argument of counsel for the appellant is accepted then that would not make any difference in the compensation, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects. It is next contended that if the Tribunal had awarded any amount under the head of future prospects, the compensation would have been same. 5. Be that as it may, from perusal of the records, it appears that in the instant case, the Tribunal in deciding the issue with regard to involvement of the offending vehicle has considered in detail the testimony of P.W.-2, who is the eye-witness of the incident. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of P.W.-2 (eye-witness) and thus the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of fact and evidence on record. 6. So far as the contention with regard to computation of compensation is concerned, even if the contention of counsel for the appellant is accepted then the compensation would not be liable to be reduced for the reason that in the instant case, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects. The law is settled that the Tribunal may award just and proper compensation. 7. In such view of the fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad