Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gudhani And Others vs U.P.S.R.T.C. on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 21.2.2023
Delivered on 23.3.2023
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 408 of 1995
Appellant :- Smt. Gudhani And Others
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Counsel for Appellant :- ,Ramesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Samir Sharma(Senior Adv.),Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By way of this appeal, the legal heirs of the deceased who met with the accident have challenged the judgment and order dated 10.2.1995 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Claim Petition No. 57 of 1994 whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed.
3. Facts in nutshell are that Radha Krishna is said to have died in the accident taken place on 22.11.1993. The accident was between the Bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. and the cycle of the deceased. It was alleged that the bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. being No. UP32A 4225 was going from Rai Bareilly to Agra and when the bus reached near village Ninjaura at Kalpi Road it collided with the deceased who was on cycled. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased died leaving behind six claimants who preferred the claim petition.
4. The learned judge dismissed the claim petition holding that there was denial by the U.P.S.R.T.C. that the said bus was not involved in the accident. Therefore, in view of the denial, the issued had to be decided as preliminary issue. D.W.1 and D.W.2 have deposed that no number plate gets hanged on the bus. The number of the bus ascribed on the body of the bus once it come out of the depot.
5. D.W.2 has been believed as he in his oral testimony opined that on 22.1.1993 he was conductor on the bus No.UP32-A/4225 and on the said date the bus went to Agra from Rai Bareilly and no accident took place with the said bus and no enquiry was made about the accident. The claimants have examined three witnesses. However, widow of the deceased was not a witness of the accident having taken place. In police station where P.W.2, Roop Singh, went saw that cycle of the deceased was lying there and he lodged the report. He also stated that he saw the number plate i.e. UP 32-A/4225 lying at the police station. He also had not witnessed the accident taken place. P.W.3, Prem Narain, is not the lodger of F.I.R.. The learned judge on a hyper technical stand came to the conclusion that on the bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. there was no number plate which is attached. The learned judge did not examine the police authorities or the driver of the said vehicle. The evidence by U.P.S.R.T.C. is not such from which inference can be drawn that the incident did not occur. The F.I.R. and charge-sheet proves the involvement of the bus. The bus belongs to Rai Bareilly Depot.
6. The evidence on record before the Tribunal goes to show that the matter has been dealt with in hyper technical manner by the Tribunal. The decision of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2018 (4) T.A.C. 842 (S.C.). would also go to show that the Tribunal should not have heavily relied on procedural aspects overlooking the beneficial part of legislation of Motor Vehicles Act. The decisions of the Apex Court in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190 and Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 (5) SCC 656 will also enure for the benefit of the claimants who are the destitute family members of the deceased. Just because the number plate was found, that cannot be the basis of rejecting the claim petition when other facts pleaded and proved go to show that the bus was involved in the accident whereby the deceased died out of the vehicular injuries.
7. In that view of the matter, the findings are not only bad in eye of law but are perverse and hence are quashed. Appeal succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. The matter would stand relegated to the Tribunal for deciding the quantum.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
DKS
