M/S U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Bimla Devi & Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 636 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is an appeal, filed under section 173 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, against the Award/order dated 15.11.2000, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), shahdara, Delhi, inter-alia awarding a sum of Rs.6,58,080/- towards the loss of dependency. The respondents are the widow and children of the deceased satpal singh, who died on 7.5.96. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the deceased was made to alight at a Red Light by the conductor due to a dispute about bus tickets. The deceased was 47 years old at the time of his death and earning Rs.9,000/- as Junior Works Manager in ordnance Factory, Itarasi. The widow and the children, who were all students at the time of Satpal Singh's death were financially dependant upon the deceased. The widow/respondent No.1, Smt. Bimla Devi deposed before the Tribunal that she was with her husband at the time of the accident who was made to disembark at the Seelampur Red Light by the Conductor and while he was alighting, the bus was abruptly started, which led to the fall, leading to her husband's death.Her statement was found consistent and reliable by the Tribunal which also recorded a finding that there was no cross-examination of hers on material particulars.

2. The impugned order has also recorded inter alia the following findings:

(a) that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and the deceased was compelled to get down from the the bus by the conductor of the bus;

(b) that the deceased died on account of injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle:

(c) that the factor of Rs.4,570/- per month was found and applied as the dependency factor for the petitioner, who was found to be 47 years old at the time of accident and would have worked up to the age of 60 years and

(d) that the multiplier of 12 was also applied as the dependency factor and petitioners were found liable to be paid a sum of Rs.6,58,080/- towards the loss of dependency plus other ancillary amounts.

3. Learned counsel has been unable to show any legal infirmity or error in the reasoning, leading to the aforementioned findings. I have gone through the reasons given in the impugned order. The Tribunal has rightly believed the testimony of the widow who was with her husband at the time of the accident. The Award by the Tribunal gives cogent reasons and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the present appeal is without merits and liable to be dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents.

4. Appeal is accordingly dismissed in liming. There shall be no orders as to costs.