Allahabad High Court
Hukum Singh And Ors vs U.P. Rajya Pariwaha Nigam Through ... on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173618
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 86 of 1998
Appellant :- Hukum Singh And Ors
Respondent :- U.P. Rajya Pariwaha Nigam Through R.M. Etawah
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Porwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Kumar Saxena,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This appeal, at the behest of the appellants, challenges the judgment and award dated 24.10.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/6th Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim PetitionNo.182 of 1992.
2. The brief facts goes to show that on the fateful date Prem Singh who was 20 years of age engaged in labour work and earning about Rs.600/- per month left behind him seven peoples. The accident occurred on Mughal Road. He was admitted in hospital Etawah and Gwaliar and the bus which was involved in the accident belong to UPSRTC. The claimants filed the claim petition alleging that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in the rash and negligent manner and dashed with the cyclist which was plied by the deceased. The deceaseddied out of the injuries.
3. The respondent UPSRTC filed a reply of denial about involvement of vehicle and contested the claim of the appellants herein . The evidence of PW-2 and 3 corroborates each other despite that the learned Judge of the Tribunal states that witnesses has not stated at the hospital and therefore did not accepted the evidence. Just because the witnesses were not known to the claimants how could they are absurd. The charge sheet is led against the driver of the bus which is a basic proof of the vehicle being involved. Thus, the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the Tribunal is not only absurd but against the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court for dealing with matters under Motor Vehicles Act,1988.
4. A hyper technical reason has been given by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim petition under the beneficial legislation which is berets of any kind of legal reasons this just because the eye witness and father of the deceased are from the same village could the claims Tribunal reject the petition where the fatality had occurred, the answer to the question is in the negative. The Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition on the said basis. The involvement of bus has been proved by the charge sheet which is laid against the driver of the bus. Learned Tribunal could not find fault with the charge sheet.
5. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Saxena, counsel for respondent - UPSRTC has tried to support the judgment on the basis that as the witnesses are from the same village their evidence has not been considered to be acceptable and petition is rightly rejected.
6. While going through the record it is very clear that the bus was involved in the said accident. The bus driver caused the accident by dashing with the cyclist who died. The driver of the bus as usual has denied the accident having taken place though charge- sheet is involved in the accident. Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim petition once the charge sheet which is laid prim facie proves the involvement of the vehicle coupled with negligence of driver of the bus which is proved by he witnesses. The Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the evidence in criminal law and that under civil law are different despite that after deciding issue no.4 that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- dismissed the claim petition. This is nothing but perversity.
7. This Court is fortified in its view by the decision of the Apex Court in First Appeal From Order No.3425 of 2016 ( Smt. Minakshi Srivastva and three others Vs. Dheeraj Pandey and two others ) decided on 11.3.2022.
8. In that view of the matter the appeal is allowed. The amount of Rs.1,64,000/- calculated by the Tribunal with addition of Rs.50,000/- which would be for the future loss of income to the deceased family with interest at the rate of 7% is granted from date of filing till deposit of amount.
9. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023/Mukesh
