Mohd. Rahees and Others vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Etawah

This first appeal from order has been preferred by the claimants-appellants challenging the validity and correctness of the award dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Court No. 5), Farrukhabad in MACP No. 285 of 2010 (Mohd. Rahees and others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation) through its regional Manager. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Nazisha Begam (since deceased) was going to visit her relation on 1.6.2010 at Kaimganj, district Farrukhabad by bus bearing registration No. UP-76H/9274. It is claimed that when the bus stopped at Ghalib Pullia 30 mts. away from Kaimganj Bus Station, Smt. Nazisha Begam after de-boarding the bus fell down and came under the wheel of the bus suddenly moved at that very moment. Mohd. Rahees, Claimant No. 1 jumped down from the bus and stopped it. He started attending his wife, who was profusely bleeding. It is further claimed that the conductor of the bus snatched the tickets from the hands of the husband and boarded the bus and ran away. Smt. Nazisha Begam was thereafter taken to the Community Health Centre, Kaimganj, where she was given emergency treatment and was referred to RMI Hospital, Farrukhabad. Since, her condition was very serious and therefore, she was shifted to Leelamani Hospital, Agra, wherefrom she was discharged, as her condition was hopeless and she succumbed to injuries on second day of discharge.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the claimant-appellant No. 1 moved an application to the Station House Officer, Mohammadabad for post-mortem and an FIR was also lodged at Police Station Kaimganj, district Farrukhabad by the claimants-appellants against the driver of the bus. In the claim petition the appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- which was dismissed after contest by the defendant-respondents holding that the vehicle bus No. UP-76H/ 9274 was not involved in the accident by order dated 10.4.2012.

Aggrieved, the claimants-appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10.4.2012.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in a patently erroneous manner against the evidence on record. As such, the impugned award is illegal and is liable to be set aside by this Court. The order impugned is assailed on the ground that the award dated 10.4.2012 suffers from a manifest error apparent on the face of record as the claim petition has wrongly been dismissed by the Tribunal in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner and wrongly recording a finding that the aforesaid vehicle was not involved in the accident. According to the appellant the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, as such it is liable to set aside and the claimant is entitled to the compensation as demanded in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

The further ground of challenge is that the deceased lady Smt. Nazisha Begam was of sound health and physique. She was earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month by selling bangles and that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs have already been spent on her treatment due to accidental injuries received by her from the aforesaid offending bus and she suffered untimely death. It is further stated that in the circumstances, the claimant has suffered economic loss and expenses on account of treatment and purchasing of medicines etc. and that the deceased being only earning member of the family and all the appellants, who were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased have come on the road, are also entitled to 18% interest per annum apart from the compensation demanded by them. The appellant No. 1 Mohd. Rahees son of Mohd. Hameed is husband of deceased, whereas the claimant-appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are minor sons and daughters.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the impugned award.

The Tribunal before deciding the case had framed two issues. The issue No. 1 relates to determination of facts as to whether on 1.6.2010 the deceased Nazisha Begam was going at Kaimganj with her husband Mohd. Rahees by bus No. UP-76H/9274 and'' while de-boarding the bus came under the rear wheels of the bus when it was suddenly put in motion by the driver and as a result of which she succumbed to serious injuries.

The second issue whether the claimants were entitled to any compensation, if yes, then up to what extent.

In support of his case the claimant-appellant No. 1 examined himself on affidavit and submitted that he was going from Farrukhabad to Kaimganj by the aforesaid bus and that when the bus stopped at the Kaimganj Pullia, he got down from the bus and thereafter his wife also de-boarded the bus and at that time the driver moved the bus forward rashly and negligently and as a result of which the wife came under the bus crushing her lower half of the body. He had given her medical treatment in which about Rs. 2,50,000/- were spent, that at the time of the accident the age of his wife was 30 years having five children who were minors; that she was earning Rs. 5,000/- by selling glass bangles in the house.

In his cross-examination he stated thus :

The second evidence on behalf of the appellants, namely, A.P.W. 2 Mohd. Raees Ahmad supported the testimony of the appellants and also stated that the bus conductor had snatched the tickets from Mohd. Raees and ran away with bus. He also stated that all the time he was with Mohd. Rahees till the death of his wife. In the cross-examination also he gave a contradictory statement and stated thus :

The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence which from the aforesaid appears to be incorrect. The Tribunal in the judgment and order has not only considered the evidence of the appellants but also of the respondents. It has noted the fact that Mohd. Rahees, appellant No. 1 had given an incorrect statement and that the bus was standing in Kaimganj Roadways Bus Stop 10 to 15 minutes and had moved thereafter which is contradictory to the statement of APW-2 Raees Ahmad. The Court disbelieved the accident committed by bus No. UP-76-9274, as in the cross-examination Raees Mohammad had specifically given the number of the bus as UP76-H-9294.

Thus disbelieving the fact that to get down from bus after a distance of 30 yards the couple was sitting inside the bus for 15-20 minutes when it stopped at the Bus Stop Kaimganj. Noticing the contradictory statements as well as the fact that bus No. UP-76-H9274 was not even caught at the site of the accident, as it was improbable that in the crowd gathered after the incident the conductor could have come back 30 yards and snatched the tickets of the appellants and could have ran away with the bus.

As regards the question snatching of tickets is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants were not the bona fide passenger. From the verification the details of the ETM machine which showed that the ticket from Farrukhabad to Kaimganj was of Rs. 23/- each and not Rs. 36/-.

Relying upon the law laid down in Shamshuddin and others v. Atta Anaruddin and others, 1(2007) ACC 330 Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal recorded its finding on first issue thus :

Consequently, the first issue has been decided against the appellants holding that the bus No. UP-76-H-9274 was not involved in the accident. Further finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the application filed by the appellants u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prove involvement of the said bus, but he has miserably failed to prove. In these circumstances, the claimants have no entitlement of compensation from the respondent U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record in detail as well as the order impugned and find that the detailed and cogent reasons have been given by the Tribunal in the judgment for disbelieving the case of the appellants. Moreover, the appellants have failed to prove their case within the four corners u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The improbability of the involvement of the bus in question is mutatis-mutandis merely because of the fact that when a passenger de-boards the bus, he will move away from the bus and in no circumstance could go under the rear wheels which is inside the body of the bus. The conductor could also have not known that the appellant No. 1 was having two tickets in his hands. According to the statement of the appellant No. 1, he was helping his wife on the road, when her body is said to have been crushed by rear wheels of the bus. Admittedly, a massive crowd had gathered and the driver and conductor could have gone near Nazisha Begam for snatching the tickets and running away with them and taking the bus away. There are a lot of loopholes in the story of the claimants. The link of the chain of sequence does not fit in. Therefore, to our mind, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the bus was not involved in the incident and has rightly rejected the claim petition of the claimants by disclosing cogent reasons.

In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellants has no leg to stand. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 10.4.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.