Allahabad High Court
U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko. ... vs Shri Asht Kumar And Another on 14 November, 2024
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75191
Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 358 of 2024
Appellant :- U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko. Thru. G.M./ / Chairman And Another
Respondent :- Shri Asht Kumar And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 30.08.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.401 of 2018; Asht Kumar Versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and others by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faizabad.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident was head on collision, therefore, contributory negligence of the other vehicle should also have been determined. He further submits that the claimant-respondent no.1 had filed only certain medical bills, but without verification, the same have been allowed. He further submits that no interest was demanded by the claimant-respondent no.1, but the same has been allowed, which could not have been done. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not tenable and liable to be set aside.
4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, I have perused the impugned judgment and award and the grounds taken in this Appeal.
5. The claim petition was filed alleging therein that the claimant-respondent no.1 was going from Magic No.UP-42-AT-3097 from Faizabad to Gosainganj with passengers, when at about 7.30 a.m. the driver of Roadways bus No.UP-50-AT-5240, coming from the side of Ambedkarnagar, driving rashly and negligently came on the wrong side of road and hit the vehicle of the claimant-respondent no.1. In the said accident the claimant-respondent no.1 suffered serious injuries. He was taken by Ambulance to the District Hospital Faizabad from where he was referred to Lucknow. The First Information Report was lodged vide Case Crime No.334 of 2018, under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 IPC at Police Station Mahrajganj, District-Faizabad. The injured was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He demanded compensation to the tune of Rs.28,08,000/-.
6. The claim petition was contested by the respondents no.1 and 2 by filing the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. As per the averments of the respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. the appellants recorded in the order no such plea of head on collision was taken, rather a plea was taken that the Magic had collided with a bull and dashed in the Bus.
7. The written statement was also filed by the respondent no.2, who was driver of the bus of the appellant. He has also not stated about the head on collision.
8. After exchange of pleadings, three issues were framed. Thereafter oral as well as documentary evidence was filed by the parties. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition.
9. Perusal of the pleadings of the parties indicates that the plea of head on collision and contributory negligence was not taken by the appellants or the respondent no.2, who was the driver of the appellants. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before it has recorded a finding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus of the appellant having Registration No.UP-50-AT-5240. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding on the basis of site plan, which shows that the Magic was going from Faizabad to Gosainganj on left side of the Road and the offending bus of the appellants had dashed the Magic after coming on the right side of the road i.e. on his wrong side. Even otherwise no plea of head on collision and contributory negligence appears to have been taken and proved by the appellants. Thus the plea taken by the appellants of head on collision and contributory negligence of the other vehicle is misconceived and not tenable.
10. The other plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is in regard to the bills produced by the claimant-respondent no.1. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the total bills of Rs.3,09,176/- have been produced by the claimant-respondent no.1, which have not been disputed by the appellants at any stage. Learned counsel for the appellants has also failed to show any contrary plea or evidence before Tribunal. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality or error in allowing the medical bills of the claimant-respondent no.1.
11. The last point argued by learned counsel for the appellants is in regard to the interest awarded by the Tribunal. It is settled law that the Tribunal has to award the just and fair compensation, therefore, even if the interest was not claimed, it could have been awarded as per law, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard is also misconceived.
12. In view of above, this court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.
13. The First Appeal From Order is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The statutory amount deposited before this court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within a period of three weeks from today to be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant-respondent no.1 under the impugned judgment and award.
.
.......................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.)
Order Date :- 14.11.2024
Banswar
