Chief General Manager , U.P. State ... vs Sangeeta Yadav And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16668 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37097
 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 159 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Chief General Manager , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lko. And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Sangeeta Yadav And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Ratan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mukesh Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard Shri Ram Ratan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No1. to 5.

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 25.02.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.24/2021, wherein on account of death of one Indrasen Yadav, the claimants-respondents have been awarded a sum of Rs.41,63,934/- along with 7% interest.

Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the award has submitted that in respect of the accident in question, the FIR was lodged with two days' delay. It is further urged that since a specific plea was taken by the appellant that the accident did not occur from the bus belonging to the appellant No.1, therefore, the delay in filing the FIR assumes significance. It is also urged that it was also alternatively a case of head on collision and the motorcyclist /deceased himself was responsible and, therefore, it being a case of contributory negligence, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the aforesaid aspects, which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, on the other hand, submits that the plea of denial of accident and in the alternative a case of contributory negligence are contradictory pleas. Moreover, the record would indicate that the claimants had examined an eye-witness, who clearly deposed that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, which resulted in death of Indrasen Yadav. The FIR and the charge-sheet was also brought on record which corroborates the aforesaid fact and there was no evidence led by the appellants to establish the plea of contributory negligence. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in making the award.

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

It would reflect that the case set up by the claimants-respondents was that on 14.05.2019 at around 09:30 AM, the deceased Indrasen Yadav was riding his motorcycle and was proceeding towards his office for his duties. While he had reached Jallalpur at that relevant time a bus bearing UP-42-AT-5437 hit the motorcyclist from the back and from the wrong side which caused grievous injuries to the rider of the motorcycle, who later succumbed to his injuries and in this view of the matter, a claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondents, which was registered as Claim Petition No.24/2021.

The claim petition was contested by the appellants by raising a ground that no accident had occurred from the bus in question. Apart from that, FIR was also delayed by two days and even otherwise it being a case of contributory negligence, the sole liability was not of the appellants.

Upon exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed five issues and considering the Issues No.1 and 2, it found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and it also found that since the bus had hit the motorcyclist from the behind, accordingly, it was no case of contributory negligence. It found that the bus was duly insured and the driver had a valid licence and thereafter it went on to compute the compensation and has awarded a sum of Rs.41,68,934/- along with 7% interest by means of its judgment and award dated 25.02.2023 which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and from a material on record, this Court finds that insofar as the issue regarding the denial of accident is concerned, the claimants had produced an eye-witness as PW-2 namely Vinod Kumar Yadav, who categorically stated that he also worked with the deceased in the same Department and he too was also on his way to work and at intersection he had stopped for eating paan. At that time he had seen the accident and he identified the bus in question.

The record further indicates that even the driver of the bus was produced as an witness and during his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he had taken the bus from the depot and was available on the aforesaid route where the accident is said to have occurred. No further evidence was led by the defendants-appellants to contradict the happening of the accident, apart from that in respect of the same accident, an FIR was lodged and later a charge-sheet was also filed against the driver and this fact was also not disputed.

In light of the aforesaid where the foundational facts were proved, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Tribunal on account of denial made by the appellants regarding happening of the accident has been inappropriately considered.

The second ground raised by the appellants regarding the delay in lodging of the FIR in itself does not affect the happening of the accident which stood proved by examining the eye-witness. It is not disputed that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased and lodging of the FIR after two days of the accident where the person had died in itself is not material. It would also be found that in pursuance of the FIR, the investigations were made which prima-facie found that the accident had occurred which led to filing of the charge-sheet against the driver, who is still under trial. For the aforesaid reasons, the alleged delay of two days is also not material.

A plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding contributory negligence, it would be seen that though the plea was raised in the alternate, but nevertheless, the basic plea upon which the appellants had contested the proceedings was denial of the accident. Once, the accident stood proved, it was yet open for the appellants to have contested the plea of contributory negligence by leading evidence.

The record would indicate that insofar as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, it was found that the motorcycle was hit from the back and in the technical inspection report, the motorcycle was found damaged from the back. Even the site plan which was prepared in pursuance of the investigation also depict the aforesaid aspect coupled with the fact that the testimony of the eye-witness which clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was riding motorcycle on his correct side of the road at a reasonable speed and it is the bus which came on the wrong side and hit the motorcyclist on the back. These are pure findings of fact based on the evidence and there is nothing on record to reflect that there is any contrary material or evidence which was brought on behalf of the appellant to controvert or the findings are perverse.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error in the impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2023. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The judgment and award dated 25.02.2023 is affirmed. The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.

Order Date :- 25.5.2023

Rakesh/-