Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Ashok Gandhi And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 20.05.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby said Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 122 of 2009, Ashok Gandhi and others Vs Sanjeev Kumar and another, partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,66,000/- to them against the appellant along with seven per cent interest per annum from the date of institution of claim petition.

2) Brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2008, at about 05:00 P.M., Amit Gandhi, son of claimants / respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein, along with his friend Ashish Sharma was driving his motorcycle Bajaj Caliber, bearing registration no. UA 06A / 4075 on railway station road and was going to attend some important work. As soon as the motorcycle reached near railway station, a bus bearing registration no. UP 22C / 9722, belonging to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Moradabad Depot, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed the motorcycle from behind. As a result of which, Amit Gandhi and his friend fell down. The body of Amit Gandhi came beneath the front wheel of the bus due to which he sustained grievous injuries on his head and body and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Many a people gathered at the place of incident. Apoorva Mehrotra, who was present on the spot, informed the claimants over phone regarding said accident. The injured was taken to Govt. Hospital, Kashipur, where the doctors declared him brought dead. Inquest report was prepared and postmortem of Amit was conducted at Govt. Hospital, Kashipur. It is stated in the claim petition that the FIR was lodged on the very day by Gaurav Kumar, another son of the claimants. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident. He was M.Com. and by taking tuitions used to earn Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further stated in the claim petition that the claimants suffered mental and economic loss due to untimely death of the deceased and they were deprived of his love and affection. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest is sought as compensation.

3) Opposite party no. 1 Sanjeev Kumar, driver of the bus, filed his written statement before the Tribunal and stated that on 03.11.2008 when he reached near Kashipur Railway Station while driving the bus, he witnessed a huge crowd there and one motorcycle rider and pillion rider were lying on the road. He had to stop the bus, as there was great rush on the road. Suddenly, some people from the crowd started shouting and tried to pull him down the bus and, therefore, he fled away from the spot leaving his vehicle on the spot. It is stated that the accident did not take place from his vehicle. He was driving his vehicle with caution and at a slow speed and had valid driving licence on the date of accident and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the motorcycle rider.

4) Opposite party no. 2, Managing Director of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation also filed his written statement and reiterated the averments made by the driver of the vehicle in his written statement. It is also stated that the claimants have not impleaded the insurance company with whom the motorcycle was ensured, as a party to the claim petition.

5) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case:

Whether the accident dated 03.11.2008, at 05:00 P.M., in front of Railway Station Maal Godam, Kashipur, within the limits of P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of bus no. UP 22C / 9722, which resulted in the death of Amit Gandhi? If yes, its effect?

To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled, and from whom?

6) The Tribunal after recording the evidence and on hearing the parties, found that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the same. It is further found that the offending vehicle was being driven on the date, time and place of the accident in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Having found the driver rash and negligent in driving the vehicle the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- as compensation to the claimants and directed that the same be paid by appellant Transport Corporation, with whom the vehicle was insured, within a period of two months from the date of passing the award. Thus, both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and against the appellant Transport Corporation. It is further directed that if the appellant fails to pay the amount of compensation within two months, he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum thereon from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. Both the claimants will be entitled to get equal amount out of the total amount of compensation, in cash.

7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers brought on record.

8) Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Tribunal has erred in law in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, which the deceased would have spent on himself during his lifetime, and in arriving at the finding on its basis that the notional income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/-. It is contended that the Tribunal should have deducted half of the amount from the notional income of the deceased, but it had completely failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was bachelor and the claimants cannot be said to be dependent on him.

9) A perusal of the impugned award would reveal that the learned Tribunal had calculated the notional income of the claimant at Rs.24,000/- per year. Having considered the notional income of Rs. 24,000/- and having considered the age of the claimant at 26 years, applied the multiplier of 11, as such the amount was assessed at Rs.2,64,000/-. In addition to above, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded to the claimant towards funeral expenses and a total amount of Rs.2,66,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum thereon has been awarded as amount of compensation. So far as quantum of amount of compensation is concerned, the notional income has to be presumed after assessing the dependency and the loss suffered by the claimants. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/-per annum, which cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable from any stretch of imagination.

10) No other arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nor any other point pressed.

11) Having gone through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and on perusal of the facts and evidence available on record, this court is of the firm opinion that the Tribunal has recorded categorical findings on the pleadings and evidence led by the claimants and appellant Transport Corporation in arriving to a conclusion that the appellant is entitled to pay the compensation to the claimants, as the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the date, time and place of accident. Learned Tribunal has also recorded a categorical finding that though the driver of the bus was having valid driving license, but he rash and negligent in driving the bus which resulted into the said accident.

12) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the papers on record, this Court does not find any error of fact or that of law in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

13) Amount, if any, deposited before this Court by the appellant, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.