Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Ramesh And 2 Others on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17314
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2931 of 2015
Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Ramesh And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Dixit,Jitendra Kumar,Mangla Prasad Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Mohan Rai
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Cross Objection / Cross Appeal No. 29 of 2023
Cross objection / cross appeal has been field by the claimants-respondents for enhancement of compensation.
As per report of Stamp Reporter, there is delay of 1660 days in filing the cross objection.
There is huge delay in filing the cross objection / cross appeal and the delay has not been properly explained by the claimants-respondents in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
The delay condonation application is rejected and the cross objection / cross appeal is also dismissed being barred by time.
Order on Appeal
Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Krishna Mohan Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.
No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 3.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Etah, in M.A.C.P. No. 426 of 2011 (Ramesh and another vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another) by which compensation of Rs. 2,16,600/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondents and the liability has been fixed upon the appellant Corporation to pay the compensation.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claims tribunal has committed gross illegality in deciding the issue no. 1 holding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus, whereas, the bus of the corporation was in stationary condition and the deceased, who was sitting on rickshaw and on account of negligence of rickshaw puller, the rickshaw was collided with the bus in the premises of bus stand and she fell down and received injuries. The finding recorded by the claims tribunal in respect of negligence of bus driver while deciding issue no. 1 is perverse and against the evidence adduced by the parties. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in awarding a very excessive compensation in favour of the claimants.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that the claims tribunal has recorded the finding regarding rash and negligence of the bus driver on the basis of statements of eye witnesses PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar and PW-2 Jalaluddin, who were present on the spot at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the bus.
Considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Record shows that the first information report was lodged against the driver of bus and the the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the bus driver. The claimants had produced two eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 who also proved the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The driver and conductor of the bus were produced by the corporation as DW-1 and DW-2 and both the defence witnesses had admitted the factum of accident and only negligence of bus driver was denied.
The claims tribunal after considering the entire material and evidence which are available on record has recorded the finding of fact to the effect that the driver of bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. The finding recorded by the claims tribunal regarding rash and negligence of the bus driver is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner. So far as, quantum of compensation is concerned, the claims tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,16,600/- for the death of Mahendra Pal Singh aged about 62 years, which cannot said to be excessive in any manner.
No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The first appeal from order is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
sailesh
