Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Kusum And Others on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 34 of 2010
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Kusum And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar, ,Deo Dayal,Kailash Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- Shahnawaz Akhtar,Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap,Sanjiv K.Gupta
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Deo Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shahnawaz Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents and perused the record.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 6.10.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Badaun, in M.A.C.P. No. 175 of 2008 (Smt. Kusum and others vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another) by which claim petition filed by claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 3 was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Peetamber aged about 21 years.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of contributory negligence and the deceased who was driving the motorcycle was also rash and negligent but nothing has been deducted in terms of contributory negligence. It is further submitted that the driver of the alleged bus was driving the bus in moderate speed. Lastly, it is submitted that the driver of the bus has denied the involvement of the bus in the accident and the Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the appellant and the entire liability has wrongly been fixed upon the appellant Corporation, the owner of the bus.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents has submitted that the first information report was lodged against the driver of the offending bus and the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the bus. It is further submitted that claimants had produced Ramnarayan as PW-2 who was an eye witness of the accident. PW-2 has stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus and the Claims Tribunal has rightly decided issue of negligence holding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
From perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, it is evident that the first information report was lodged against the driver of the bus. The Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The claimants had also produced eye witness of the accident as PW-2, who proved the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus was examined as DW-1 as defence witness, who had denied the factum of accident. The Claims Tribunal had discarded the evidence of driver of the bus as he was an interested witness and criminal case was pending against him.
The finding recorded by Claims Tribunal in respect of involvement of bus as well as rash and negligent driving of bus driver is based on evidence and material which are available on record and there is no illegality in any manner.
So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- on account of death of Peetambar, who was aged about 21 years. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper and it cannot said to be excessive in any manner. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022
sailesh
