Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Prateek Jakhanwal Thru. Next ... on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56326
Court No. - 19
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2023
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Managing Director,Lucknow
Respondent :- Prateek Jakhanwal Thru. Next Friend Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jakhanwal
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi,Sourabh Mishra
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.111/2022, whereby in an injury case a sum of Rs.49,58,314/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents.
3. The matter in question arises out of a tragic incident wherein a Janrath Bus No.UP-33-AT-5877 of the U.P.S.R.T.C., had left the Alambagh Bus Terminal for its journey towards Delhi. At around 4:00-4:30 AM, while the bus had reached Agra, on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the said bus fell 30 feet in a drain, as a result of this tragedy, 29 persons lost their lives and 25 persons sustained grievous injuries.
4. The present appeal arises out of a claim which was awarded in favour of the respondent, who had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. It was the case of the claimant-respondent that the claimant, a 27 years young man was travelling along with his sister from Lucknow to Delhi in the Bus No.UP-33-AT-5877. On account of negligent driving, the bus fell 30 feet in a drain and in the said incident the claimant suffered serious head injuries and also received grievous injuries on various parts of his body so much so that he remained in coma for ten days and even till the date when the claim was filed he had not fully recovered and his treatment was still going on. It was also stated that the local residents along with the help of the police had initially referred the persons to Agra Medical College. Thereafter, the claimant was referred to the S.G.P.G.I., where he remained under treatment for many months. His treatment was also done at Icon Hospital, Jankipuram, Lucknow and remained under treatment of Dr. Vatsal for 13 months. He also remained under treatment of Dr. Atul Rastogi for 6 months and also took treatment with Ayurvedic University at Lucknow. The injuries sustained by the claimant was such that he now requires two assistants for his movement and his future prospects, prospect of marriage and other future amenities have been completely shattered. The claimant was working as an Engineer in I.B.M. India Pvt. Ltd., and was earning a sum of Rs.31,863.17 per month, but on account of severe injuries, he has been rendered jobless.
5. It is in the aforesaid context, the claim petition was filed which was contested by the appellant. The Tribunal noticing the functional disability as well as the loss of earning and towards pain, suffering mental anxiety and also noticing that the claimant would require future medical treatment including the dependency on two attendants amongst others had computed the compensation at Rs.49,58,314/- payable along with 7% interest to the claimant.
6. This award has been challenged primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the grant of compensation towards two attendants and a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- has been awarded on this count.
7. It is submitted that the Chief Medical Officer while issuing a disability certificate, certifying that the claimant-respondent had 90% permanent disability and 100% functional disability had also certified one attendant.
8. It is urged that despite the Medical Officer certifying for grant of one attendant, yet the Tribunal has awarded the compensation taking into account the need for two attendants and as such the award is on higher side, which requires indulgence and correction from this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the claimant received such grievous injuries and being of a young age of 27 years which has rendered him almost handicapped and disabled. Despite the period of treatment and the lapsing of time from the date of accident, the claimant is not able to function without help and rather requires two persons for his movement as well as for taking him for his treatment and for his daily chores.
10. It is taking all the aforesaid factors including the future prospects, loss of income and dent to his bright future suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded the amount which is just and proper and does not require any interference.
11. The Court has considered the submissions and also perused the material on record.
12. The only issue which has been urged is regarding the amount awarded being on the higher side especially in view of the fact that the Chief Medical Officer had certified the need for one attendant whereas the Tribunal has considered and granted compensation taking into account the need for two attendants.
13. Having considered the submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, the factum of the accident is not disputed. It is also not disputed that large number of passengers travelling in the fateful bus met their maker and many suffered grievous injuries in the tragic incident.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances and the manner in which the respondent received injuries and the extent of his treatment and the fact that he was merely 27 years of age and remained in coma for more than ten days and has been taking the treatment in various hospitals with 100% functional disability and 90% permanent disability duly certified by the Chief Medical Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is reminded of the decision of the Apex Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413.
15. Considering the principles as culled out from the decision of the Apex Court in Kajal (supra) and applying it to the present facts and circumstances including that the life of the claimant-respondent has been severely affected and noticing the reasons given by the Tribunal while arriving at its findings, this Court does not find that there is palpable error in the award which may persuade this Court to interfere.
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid appeal which is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Any amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimant-respondent and the remaining sum if any shall be paid to the claimants-respondents within 60 days from today.
Order Date :- 23.08.2023
Rakesh/-
