U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Ramawati

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

This First Appeal From Order arises out of the judgment and award dated 23.7.2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 4700765 of 2011; Smt. Ramawati and others v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others whereby a sum of Rs. 3,98,800/- along with 6% simple interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

As per the given facts an accident had taken place on 04.12.2011 at about 6 am. near village Jehta under Police Station Kakori, Lucknow. The deceased, Vijay Kumar, along with his brother Rahul Kumar were going on a motorcycle from Jehta to Kahla. Rahul Kumar due to a call of nature had gone at the side of the road to attend the call of nature and deceased Vijay Kumar was standing near the motorcycle, a roadways bus bearing Registration No. UP 32CZ 3537 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver had hit Vijay Kumar who was standing at the side of the road. Vijay Kumar and motorcycle both fell due to which Vijay Kumar sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Trauma Center, Medical College, Lucknow where Vijay Kumar succumbed to his injuries and died on 06.12.2011. An FIR under Sections 279, 304-A IPC Police Station Kakori, Lucknow was lodged as case Crime No. 456 of 2011. The learned Tribunal relying on the statement of eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 has come to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place with the offending vehicle UP 32CZ 3537, due to rash and negligent of the driver of the said vehicle.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is wrong to say that the alleged accident had taken place with the said vehicle as the notified route of the said vehicle was not at the place of accident and in fact it was plying on Delhi-Lucknow Route. The learned Tribunal wrongly relying on the statement of PW-2 and PW-3, who are interested parties, has held that the alleged accident had taken place with the vehicle of the appellants. It is also submitted that the presence of eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 at the place of accident is also denied. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim of the respondents had framed certain issues including issue no. 1 which relates as to whether on 04.12.2011 at about 6 am. near village Jehta, P.S. Kakori, Lucknow an accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of a roadways bus UP 32CZ 3537 in which Vijay Kumar and his motorcycle were hit and Vijay Kumar had sustained injuries and died on 06.12.2011.

The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 1 has come to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place with the said offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and in the said accident deceased Vijay Kumar had sustained serious injuries and due to said injuries had died on 06.12.2011. The learned Tribunal in this regard has relied on the statement of eyewitnesses, particularly PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2, Rahul Kumar, in his statement has stated that he was going with deceased Vijay Kumar on a motorcycle from Jehta to Kahla. He had gone to release himself due to a call of nature and had parked his motorcycle at the corner of the road. Deceased, Vijay Kumar, was standing near the motorcycle where a roadways bus UP 32CZ 3537 had come from behind and hit the deceased Vijay Kumar. The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and due to which the said accident had taken place. The deceased Vijay Kumar had sustained serious injuries in the said accident and was admitted in the Trauma Center, Medical College, Lucknow where he succumbed to his injuries on 06.12.2011. It is said that the deceased was his brother. PW-3, Ram Krishna, in his statement stated that he was standing on the main road near the place of accident and had seen the said accident taking place. Rahul Kumar had gone to release himself while roadways bus UP 32CZ 3537 coming from Mall side had hit Vijay Kumar who was standing at the side of the road where the motorcycle was parked. The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. It is also stated that the deceased Vijay Kumar was taken to the trauma center, Medical College, Lucknow where he was admitted and while under treatment had died on 06.12.2011.

Both the witnesses have given specific details about the alleged accident and there appears to be no contradiction in their statement. They were cross-examined by the appellant-defendant and there was nothing to doubt about the authenticity of their statement. The learned Tribunal relying on the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 has come to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place with the said offending vehicle. Merely because PW-2 was the brother of the deceased and PW-3 was also known to the deceased does not mean that their statements cannot be relied.

In case the appellant being one of the defendants before the Tribunal had taken the plea that the alleged accident had not taken place with the alleged vehicle, then the burden to prove the same was on the appellant-defendant and they were required to establish before the Court that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident.

Learned counsel for appellant has merely placed before the Court the stand taken by the appellant before the Tribunal where in their Written Statement they have baldly denied the presence of the alleged offending vehicle at the place of accident. In the Written Statement filed by the driver, the same stand has been taken, however, the appellant-defendant had not produced any evidence such as routechart, departure and arrival of the offending vehicle at the marked stations from where under its notified route it was supposed to ply and such other evidence to establish that the said vehicle was not plying on the route where the alleged accident had taken place. In the absence of such evidence, there was nothing on record before the Tribunal nor before this court to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.

It was not sufficient for the appellant to have merely taken the stand that the said vehicle was not plying on the route where the alleged accident had taken place. It was required to be supported with documentary proof to show that the said vehicle was not involved in the said accident.

Learned counsel for appellant on a query being put by the Court informs that a charge-sheet with respect to FIR lodged in this regard has been filed, prima facie showing the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage. The award given by the learned Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The appellant shall make compliance of the award as per the terms & conditions given in the award. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.