U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Raham Daad Khan and Another

Ashok Kumar Roopanwal, J.—This First Appeal From Order has been preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment dated 31st January 2010 and the Decree dated. 11th February 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Room No. 11, Bareilly, in M.A.C.P. No. 600 of 2008, Raham Daad Khan and Anr. v. U.P.S.R.T.C, Bareilly, though its Managing Director/Local Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadways Station, Bareilly, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,500/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the petition till the date of payment. Each of the claimants-appellants was given 50% of the compensation. It was further directed by the Tribunal that out of the amount payable to each of the claimants Rs. 60,000/- shall be invested in Fixed Deposit scheme of a Nationalised Bank for three years.

The Claimants raised their claim through the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 600 of 2008 on account of the death of their son Babloo. The death of Babloo occurred in the accident, which took place on 23rd, July. 2008 near Lotus College at Faridpur- Bareilly Road. At that time he was travelling in a Tempo bearing number UP 78 AT 5602. An U.P. State Roadways Bus bearing number UGL 487 came from behind the Tempo in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident due to which Babloo received injuries and later on died. He was 20 years of age when the accident took place. He was a mason and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claim petition of the claimants was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation filed its written statement denying almost all the allegations of the claim petition. It was alleged in the written statement that the Claim petition was not filed as per the law and was also not properly signed and verified. The accident was also denied by the U.P.S.R.T.C With the above mentioned Bus. It was also said in the written statement that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner of the Tempo and the Insurance Company of it were not made parties in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

Whether the accident had taken place with Tempo No. U.P 78 AT 5602 on 23.7.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. near Lotus College under the Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, on account of the driving of the U.P. State Road ways Bus No. UGL 487 by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in which Babloo received injuries who later on died?

Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation?

The claimants examined PW 1- Raham Daad Khan and PW 2-Irfan in support of their claim and they also filed copies of the First Information Report, Post-mortem Report of the deceased, charge sheet filed by the police in the criminal case relating to the aforesaid incident and the site plan prepared by the I.O. In the criminal case.

U.P.S.R.T.C. Examined DW1- Vikram Singh in support of its case.

The Tribunal after assessing the evidence of the parties decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 2 was decided to the effect that the claimants were entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,74,500/- from the U.P.S.R.T.C. alongwith interest.

On the basis of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 the claim petition was allowed in the manner hereinbefore stated.

While hearing on admission it was ordered by this Court on 4th May, 2010 that the Appellant shall file copies of the pleadings exchanged between the parties before the Tribunal, the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties before the Tribunal and the documents of the parties filed before the Tribunal. This order was complied with by the Appellant by filing a supplementary affidavit alongwith copies of the pleadings, statements of the witnesses and the documents relied upon by the parties before the Tribunal.

We have heard Mr. Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, on admission. He has assailed the judgment and the order of the Tribunal on two points, firstly, that the accident had not taken place as alleged by the claimants-respondents and secondly, that the compensation awarded is excessive.

We have gone through the finding of the Tribunal relating to the alleged accident with the bus of the Appellant.

To prove that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. UGL 487 the claimants examined PW 1- Raham Daad Khan and PW 2-Irfan. As PW 1 was not the eye witness of the alleged accident, hence, his statement was not material regarding this issue. PW 2-Irfan was said to be an eyewitness of the occurrence. He had stated that at the time of the accident i.e. on 23rd July, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. He was going from his village to Faridpur on a motorcycle alongwith one Kaushar Khan. When they reached between the villages Kesarpur and Zed they saw that a Tempo was going towards Bareilly. Immediately then a Roadways Bus having No. UGL 487 (the Bus, which is said to have caused accident) came from the side of Faridpur and dashed against the Tempo from behind in which Babloo son of Raham Daad Khan received serious injuries and was taken to the hospital. In the same evening he came to know that Babloo had died. He had stated that at the time of the accident he was about 40 yards away from the place of occurrence. The Bus, which caused the accident stopped for a while after the accident and then went away. He had stated that Kaushar, who was driving the motorcycle, was sent at the house of Babloo to inform about the accident.

learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that this witness could not be in a position to see the accident as he was going towards Faridpur while the accident had taken place when the vehicles were coming from the side of Faridpur. According to the learned Counsel. This witness would be on the opposite side of the vehicles and could not be in a position to see as to how and due to whose fault the accident had taken place.

We are unable to accept the above argument. Once the witness had categorically stated that he had seen the occurrence at the time when he was 40 yards away from the place of occurrence, there was no reason to disbelieve him. His presence at the time of the alleged accident has well been explained by this witness and that explanation is very much believable that he was going to Faridpur. As the factum of accident is very well proved, hence it was not necessary for the claimants to prove the negligence of the Bus as the claim petition was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, in our view, the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 was perfectly correct and on the basis of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on this issue there is no reason at all to admit the appeal.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in that regard the finding regarding the age and the age and the income of the deceased recorded by the trial Court could not be belied. It is very well accepted from a mason that he would be earning Rs. 120/- per day and the trial Court was justified in holding that the deceased would be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering the aforesaid income the trial Court deducted one-half for the personal expenses of the deceased and that approach of the Tribunal is also liable to be endorsed.

Thus, considering the income of Rs. 1,500/- month and adopting the multiplier of 15 as provided in the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act the amount calculated by the Tribunal as compensation is perfectly correct and, therefore, we are of the view that the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the compensation was excessively given is also not an acceptable argument.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this appeal is not liable to be admitted and requires dismissal at the very stage of admission.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.