State of U.P. vs P.P. Tripathi

Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in the revised cause list.

None appear on behalf of the respondents.

Heard Sri P.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant.

Factual matrix of the controversy involved in the present appeal are that a Claim Petition No. 50 of 1988 Pittar Prasad Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed for compensation by Sri Pittar Prasad Tripathi on the ground that on 18.01.1988 at about 12.10 p.m. an accident has taken place near Chhaya Talkies, Barabaki due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of PAC Bus No. URV 748, as a result of which two children died and one lady was injured. One of the children who had died due to the said accident aged about 13 years namely deceased Umesh Chandra was his son.

Needless to mention herein that two other claim petitions namely Claim Petition No. 18/1988 and 19/1988 were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIth Additional District Judge, Barabanki by Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava and Smt. Gayatry Srivastava. In respect to the same accident in which their son Deepak has died and Smt. Gayatri Srivastava has sustained injury.

Since all the three claim petitions namely 18/1988, 19/1988 and 50/1988 arises out of the same accident which took place on 18.01.1988 by PAC Bus No. URV 748 so the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, with the consent of the parties clubbed them for adjudication and disposal.

Further, in the said claim petition No. 50/1988, the written statement has been filed by the appellants who are respondents inter alia stating therein that the driver of the bus was not driving the same at high speed but the accident has taken place only due to some mechanical failure (brake).

After exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed three issues for disposal of the controversy involved in the matter in question. The issue No. 1 (English version) is as follows:

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of PAC Bus No. URV 748.

In order to prove his case, claimant in addition to the documentary evidence filed by him in claim petition No. 50 of 1988 also in order to gave oral evidence Sri Pittar appeared as PW.1 and produce Sri Bhola Nath as PW.2.

Sri Bhola Nath, PW.2 in his statement has categorically stated that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question as a result of which Sri Umesh Chandra, the son of the deceased who was riding the bicycle with his younger brother sitting on it has died on spot, moreover due to said accident one more child has died and a woman was also injured.

Tribunal has allowed the claim petition No. 50/1988 along with two other claim petitions by means of the judgment and award dated 30.11.1989 in the following terms:

(A) Claim Petition No. 18/1988 was allowed by which a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava and Smt. Gayatri Srivastava.

(B) Claim Petition No. 19/1988 was allowed by which a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded to Smt. Gayatri Srivastava.

(C) Claim Petition No. 50/1988 was allowed by which a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to Sri Pittar Prasad.

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.11.1989 passed in Claim Petition No. 50 of 1988 Pittar Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. by which a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

Appellants have also filed two appeals aggrieved by the judgment and award decree dated 30.11.1989 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 18/1988 and 19/1988 respectively namely FAFO No. 41 of 1990 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Surendra Nath Srivastava and FAFO No. 43 of 1990 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Surendra Nath Srivastava as both the present appeals 42 of 1990 and FAFO No. 41 of 1990 and FAFO No. 43 of 1990 are arising out of the same judgment, so all the three appeals were connected together.

Sri PK. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.1989 submits that the Tribunal while passing the same had incorrectly held that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question rather the same has taken place due to mechanical failure (brake), as such the award in question arbitrary and contrary to the facts and pleadings is liable to be set aside.

I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the record as stated hereinabove in order to adjudicate and decide the controversy involved in Claim Petition Nos. 18/1988, 19/1988 and 50/1988 which arises out of the accident which took place on 18.01.1988 by PAC Bus No. URV 748 as a result of which Sri Deepak son of Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava and Smt. Gayatri Srivastava as well as Sri Umesh Chandra son of Sri Pittar Prasad have died and Smt. Gayatri Srivastava has sustained injury.

The Tribunal had framed three issues out of which the issue No. 1 which is to the effect that whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving a of PAC Bus No. URV 748 and while deciding the same, the Tribunal, on the basis of the documentary as well as oral evidence had come to the conclusion that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of PAC Bus No. URV 748 by its driver Sri Ram Prasad and had not believed the version of the appellants/respondents that the accident has taken place due to mechanical failure.

Moreover, a finding of fact has also been given by the Tribunal that the hand brake of the bus in question was not in a proper condition and it was the outlook of the appellant who are the owner of the bus to maintain the same in proper manner and then to operate on the route which had not been done in the present case on the basis of the said finding of fact award in question has been passed.

It is well settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction can set aside the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal only when the same is contrary to the facts of the case and perverse in nature.

Sri P.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court that under what circumstances and reasons, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award in question is contrary to the facts of the case and perverse in nature. So there is neither illegality nor infirmity in the impugned order.

For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal filed by the appellant lacks merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.