Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Babita And Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This appeal arises out of an award dated 06.08.2016 given by the motor accident claims Tribunal, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the claim petition of the claimant was partly allowed and an amount of Rs. 3,84,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) has been awarded in favour of the claimant towards compensation on account of death of her seventeen year old son Manish Rana in a motor accident.

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2015, deceased Manish Rana was going from Nanakmatta to Sitarganj on motor cycle bearing registration no. UA-06G-3548. The motor cycle was being driven by one Balkar Singh and the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider. At about 05:30 p.m. when the motor cycle reached near "Pachpera Bhatta", Balkar Singh stopped the motor cycle in order to answer the call of nature. At the same time, a bus bearing registration no. UK-07PA-0513 which was also coming from Nanakmatta to Sitarganj dashed on to the motor cycle, as a result of which Manish Rana sustained grievous injuries and due to injuries he died on the spot.

The claimant, who is mother of deceased Manish Rana filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stating that her son was seventeen year old. He used to do labour work and was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month. A claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh only) was made by the claimant on account of death of her son in the motor accident.

The owner of the vehicle i.e. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has not denied the incident but case of contributory negligence has been made up inasmuch as according to them the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by Balkar Singh, who was driving the motor cycle, and the accident took place when he tried to overtake the bus.

On the basis of the pleadings made by the rival parties, the learned motor accident claims tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the accident occurred on 17.01.2015 at about 05:30 p.m. near Pachpera Bhatta, Nanakmatta-Sitarganj Road, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving by the owner of Roadways bus no. UK-07PA-0513, due to which Manish Rana sustained injuries and passed away? If yes, then its effect?

Whether the claimant is entitled to get any amount of compensation? If yes, to what extent and from which of the parties?"

As far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the learned motor accident claims tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did take place due to contributory negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the motor cycle.

While calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that the deceased was 17 year of age at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only) and further added an amount of Rs. 2,250/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) towards future income and thus calculated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,750/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only). Out of this amount of Rs. 6,750/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only), fifty person of amount was deducted by the learned tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 3,375/-(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five only). Thus the annual income of the deceased was calculated to the tune of Rs. 40,500/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Five Hundred only). Considering the age of the deceased to be between sixteen to twenty years, a multiplier of eighteen was applied and thus the total amount was calculated by the tribunal as Rs. 7,29,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only).

Since the learned Tribunal came to the finding that the accident did take place due to contributory negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the motor cycle, the learned tribunal reduced the fifty per cent from the said amount of 7,29,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) and recorded the finding that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 3,64,500/-(Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection. Thus a total claim of Rs. 3,84,500/-(Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) was awarded to the claimant as compensation.

Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned motor accident claims tribunal, the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. We do not have any appeal of the claimant before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savita v. Bindar Singh and others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 505, Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Rani & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2019 (1) U.D., 101.

This Court is also conscious of the fact that there is no appeal of the claimant for enhancement of the award. Even though the claimant has not challenged the award of the Tribunal, but in case there is a prayer for decrease of the award on wrong calculation, it is always open for the claimant to pray for enhancement under other heads which have been ignored by the Tribunal. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the claimant on paragraph no. 6 of the judgment in the case of Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager and another, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2011, decided on 29.07.2011, which reads as under:-

"6. We are of the view of that High Court committed an error in ignoring the contention of the claimants. It is true that the claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of future prospects and add 30% of the annual income of the deceased. But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs. 23,134/ - being taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for them to challenge the award of the Tribunal. But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the Appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that the claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection."

In view of the above, no interference is liable to be made by this Court. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Fifty per cent of the awarded amount has already been deposited by the appellant. The amount deposited by the appellant, including the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. The appellant shall deposit the remaining fifty per cent amount along with seven per cent interest within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, which shall be given to the claimant forthwith on moving an appropriate application.