Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Munakka Devi And 2 Others on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187797
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2460 of 2025
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Munakka Devi And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Dinkar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. This is an owner's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 27.06.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 558/2016 (Smt. Munakka Devi and another v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. through Regional Manager Gorakhpur and another), whereby for the untimely death of Ravindra Nath in a road accident that took place on 10.04.2016, a compensation of Rs. 5,60,280/- along-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants and it has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner of the offending Bus No.UP53-CT-0968.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 10.04.2016 at about 7:25 A.M., Radhey Shyam was driving Motorcycle No. UP-51-Q-8641, on which the deceased, Ravindra Nath, was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Sarla Inter College on Basti?Gorakhpur Road, the offending Roadways Bus No. UP-53-CT-0968, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver without blowing the horn, hit the said motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to Radhey Shyam and Ravindra Nath, who later succumbed to the injuries during treatment. The First Information Report of the accident was registered at Police Station Purani Basti, District Basti. The deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and was earning approximately Rs. 8,000/- per month from a private job. The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 4,500/-, and since he was a bachelor, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, granted 40% towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of 18, and awarded Rs. 84,000/- towards funeral expenses etc. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,60,280/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The Tribunal further held that the deceased Radheyshyam was also driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, contributed to the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal assessed his contributory negligence at 30% and directed the owner of the offending bus, U.P.S.R.T.C., to pay 70% of the total compensation amount to the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Radheyshyam, who was driving the motorcycle no. UP 51 Q 8641. At the time of alleged accident, the deceased suddenly came on the main road without noticing that the bus of the appellant was coming on the main road. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening contributory negligence of only 30% on the deceased whereas it should have been 50%. Learned counsel further submitted that the site-plan of the accident duly proved that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the UPSRTC and perused the record.
5. The appellant has examined the driver of the offending bus no. UP 53 CT 0968 Ashok Kumar Singh as D.W.-1, who in the cross examination denied the accident but admitted that he was enlarged on bail by the Basti Court. He also denied the suggestion that he was not driving the offending vehicle (bus) on the date of the accident.
6. PW-2 Raju Verma has deposed that he saw the accident from a distance of 4-5 meters and at that time the motorcycle was being driven at a speed of about 20 km per hour. Also, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the bus driver Ashok Kumar Singh.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the site-plan of the accident conclusively proves that the deceased came on the main road from a side road, as such, the deceased was solely responsible for the accident.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruwilla And Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan And Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that the mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident occurred, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn, as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.
9. It is evident that the driver of the offending bus has completely denied the accident and has not mentioned anything about contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver, as such, in absence of any contrary evidence, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was solely responsible for the alleged accident. In view of the above facts, the Tribunal has determined 30% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, Radheyshyam who was driving the motorcycle at that time, which requires no interference in this appeal. The deceased Ravindra Nath was only travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle, at the time of the accident. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is also apparent that in connected matter F.A.F.O. No.2327 of 2025, UPSRTC vs. Bhola Nath and others has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025.
11. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
12. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.
14. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 27, 2025
Mayank
