Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Karandeep Singh and Others and Mehar Singh and Others

B.C. Kandpal, J.—Since both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment and award and common question of fact of law is involved in both the appeals, as such, they are being decided by this common judgment.

A.O. No. 67 of 2008, u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 76 of 2006, Karandeep Singh and Anr. v. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and Ors.. A.O. No. 109 of 2009, u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2006, Mehar Singh and Anr. v. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and Ors..

Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 14.9.2004 when deceased-Gurjeet Kaur along with her husband and daughter was going to Delhi in Maruti Car, at 8.30 a.m. in front of Bhajan Hotel on Highways at Gajraula, Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently collided with the said Maruti Car, due to which direction of Maruti Car was changed to its opposite direction and it was again collided with a Roadways Bus No. U.A.04-6973 coming from rear side, on account of which deceased and her husband and daughter sustained serious injuries. After the accident Mehar Singh, deceased-Gurjeet Kaur and their daughter were taken to Jeevan Jyoti Sewa Sansthan, Gajraula for treatment, where Gurjeet Kaur died. Thereafter, Amarpreet Kaur (daughter of deceased) was taken to Apollo Hospital, Delhi, Dr. Futela, S.R.M.S. Hospital, Bareilly where Amarpreet Kaur also died on 1.3.2005. According to the claim petition, deceased-Gurjeet Kaur was 38 years of age at the time of her death and used to earn a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the business of dairy and agriculture. The claimants also alleged that about Rs. 2,00,000/- were spent on the treatment of deceased-Amarpreet Kaur.

Opposite party No. 1-Uttaranchal Transport Corporation filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition for want of knowledge. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that its driver was driving the vehicle i.e. bus very slowly and carefully, whereas driver of Maruti Car came by driving the Maruti Car rashly and negligently and as soon as it came ahead after overtaking the bus to its left side, Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, collided with the said Maruti Car, due to which direction of Maruti Car was changed towards Moradabad side and it was again collided with the bus of Roadways, on account of which passengers sitting in Maruti Car sustained injuries and accident in question was caused on account of rash and negligence of drivers of both the vehicles i.e. truck and Maruti Car involved in the accident.

Opposite party No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice upon him, hence, an order dated 6.12.2006 was passed to proceed exparte against him.

Opposite party No. 3 i.e. insurer of Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and took additional plea that it had not been given any information with regard to accident in question and accident had taken place on account of rash and negligence of drivers of Maruti Car and bus involved in the accident and Maruti Car is the necessary party in the claim petition and driver of Truck was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident and accident is the result of contributory negligence.

The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petitions, which were discussed in great detail. Parties led evidence in support of their case.

The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, decreed M.A.C.P. No. 76 of 2006 for a sum of Rs. 3,91,000/- and M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/-, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against opposite party No. 1-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and opposite party No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd., vide impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.2007.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.2007, the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeals before this Court.

Heard Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for appellant-UK Transport Corporation, Sri S.C. Dumka, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for claimants-respondents, Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for National Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error by apportioning the liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation. He has further submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on exorbitant side and it is liable to be reduced by this Court.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents made rival contention and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

As far as factum of accident is concerned, the claim petition has been filed by the claimants alleging therein that the said accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 or driver of Bus No. U.A.04-6973. The claimants in support of their case produced Mehar Singh as PW-1, who supported the version of the claimants and stated in his deposition that on 14.9.2004 he along with his wife Gurjeet Kaur and daughter Amarpreet Kaur was going to Delhi by Maruti Car and when at 8.30 a.m. they reached in front of Bhajan Hotel Gajraula Highway, Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently collided with the Maruti Car, due to which direction of Maruti Car was changed towards Moradabad side, then a Bus of Roadways bearing No. U.A.04-6973 came rashly from the rear side and collided with the Maruti Car, on account of which wife of this witness sustained injuries and subsequently she died. In the cross examination this witness stated that there was a distance of 20-25 Mtrs. between the vehicles involved in the accident and there was a hit on collision between his car and truck. Bhagwant Singh was also produced as PW-2 and he has supported the version of PW-1. This witness has also been cross examined by the opposite parties, but no fact has come in his cross examination which may discredit the authenticity of evidence adduced by the said witness. Satendra Singh, who is the driver of bus in question, has been produced as DW-1. This witness has stated in his deposition that on the date of accident he was driving the bus slowly and carefully and when he crossed Gajraula Chauraha, driver of Maruti Car came from the rear side by driving his car rashly and driver of truck came from the opposite direction rashly and collided with the Maruti Car, due to which direction of Maruti Car was changed towards Moradabad side and was slightly touched with the bus of this witness. The claimants filed copy of F.I.R. (paper No. 29C/3) which shows that drivers of bus as well as truck have driven their vehicles rashly and negligently. Further, copy of charge sheet (paper No. 29C/5) filed on record reveals that a case is pending in the court against Satendra, driver of bus in question and Mohd. Kasim, driver of truck in question with regard to the said accident. The Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that on 14.9.2004 at 8.30 a.m. the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 and Bus No. U.A.04-6973, in which Gurjeet Kaur and Amarpreet Kaur died on account of injuries sustained by them. Therefore, the said accident is the result of contributory negligence and bus and truck in question are equally responsible for causing this accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided the said issue in favour of the claimants. I do not find any illegality in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed.

As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 76/2006 is concerned, the claimants have stated in the claim petition that deceased-Gurjeet Kaur used to earn a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month from agriculture and dairy business, but no cogent and reliable evidence has been adduced by the claimants in this regard. In case, if no cogent and reliable evidence could be adduced by the claimants in order to show the actual income of the deceased, then the formula of notional income would certainly be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the formula of notional income in this case and assessed the notional income of deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, has assessed financial dependency of claimants at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. It is the case of the claimants that age of deceased-Gurjeet Kaur was 38 years at the time of her death, which has also been proved by the opinion of the doctor in the post mortem report. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of deceased as 38 years and selected the multiplier of ''16''. The Tribunal after adopting the multiplier of ''16'' has assessed the total amount of compensation at Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium, which also appears to be justified and needs no interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference.

As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 75/2006 is concerned, claimant No. 1 has stated in the claim petition that he has spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the treatment of her daughter-Amarpreet Kaur (deceased) at Jyoti Sansthan, Gajraula, Apollo Hospital, Delhi, Bareilly Hospital, Futela Hospital. The claimants also filed medical bills and prescription in order to prove the expenses incurred in medical treatment of the deceased, which shows that a sum of Rs. 3,28,786/- has been expended by the claimants on medical treatment of the deceased. The Tribunal held that claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only towards medical treatment of the deceased under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The age of the deceased-Amarpreet Kaur was 16 years in the claim petition, which has also been proved by the death certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as age of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants as compensation, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses to the claimants, which also appears to be justified and needs no interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference.

The learned Tribunal further held that since Truck No. U.H.N.-2447 involved in the accident was insured with opposite party No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident and all the papers of said truck were valid and its driver was holding valid driving licence and ownership of bus involved in question is of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, therefore liability to pay the compensation rests upon Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and insurance company in equal share. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed.

For the reasons stated above, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and awards dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 76/2006 as well as in M.A.C.P. No. 75/2006, are hereby confirmed.

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.

Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. 109 of 2009.