Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Shailesh Dixit And Others on 14 July, 2022
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 345 of 1998 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- Shailesh Dixit And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma,N.K. Srivastava,R. Mishra,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- V.D.Ojha Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Order on C.M. Restoration Application No. 163677 of 2016 The cause shown for the absence of the counsel when the case was called out for hearing has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application.
The restoration application is allowed.
Accordingly, the order dated 3.5.2016 passed by this Court dismissing the appeal in default is recalled.
The appeal is restored to its original number and file.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Satyam Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 345 of 1998 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- Shailesh Dixit And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma,N.K. Srivastava,R. Mishra,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- V.D.Ojha Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 1.12.1997 passed by the Special Additional District Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 118 of 1993.
The facts of the case are that the claimant ? respondent no. 1 instituted Motor Accident Claim Case No. 118 of 1993 under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 alleging that he was injured in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No. U.P.-65-A-549 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the offending vehicle') owned by the appellant when it hit a tempo traveller bearing Registration No. U.P.-78-C-8615 in which the claimant was sitting. It was alleged that the claimant had suffered serious injuries in the accident for which he had to be treated by different doctors. The claim petition was contested by the appellant who admitted the accident but denied the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident and pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo traveller. On the aforesaid pleas, the appellant pleaded that they were not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the claim case was liable to be rejected.
On the issue regarding negligence and the factum of accident, the Tribunal held against the appellant. The Tribunal held that the accident causing injury to the claimant no. 1 took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was owned by the appellant. So far as compensation was concerned, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant for the pain and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.20,000/- for the medical expenses and special diets. The said award has been put to challenge in the present appeal.
It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that from the evidence on record, it was proved that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident took place because of the negligent driving of tempo traveller No. U.P.-78-C-8615 and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. It was further argued that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side and the same is liable to be reduced.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant and also perused the award of the Tribunal.
A reading of the award passed by the Tribunal indicates that the accident as pleaded by claimant no. 1 was proved by the plaintiff witness no. 1, i.e., the appellant himself and by one Manoj Kumar Khare - plaintiff witness no. 2 who was an eye-witness to the incident and was also travelling in the same tempo traveller along with the claimant. The driver of the vehicle, who deposed as D.W. - 1, has been held as not a reliable witness by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal. P.W. - 2 was an independent eye-witness of the incident and has proved that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of the Tribunal on the issues regarding factum of accident and the negligence of the driver in causing the accident is affirmed.
So far as the grant of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for the physical pain and mental agony. I do not find any reason to reduce the said compensation. The compensation for medical expenses and special diets has been granted in light of Section 163-A and Schedule - II of the Act, 1988. There is no error in the computation of compensation by the Tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
On 20.4.1998, this Court passed the following interim order : -
"One of the point argued is that it was an ordinary injury caused and the Tribunal has not set out reasonings justifying the order of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation.
Admit.
Issue notice.
The appellant shall deposit the entire amount of award within one month from today. Half may be payable to the respondent - claimant by a cheque "A/c payee only" and other half may be deposited in a R.D.R. with a nationalised bank which shall be renewable every year along with interest amount until further orders of this Court. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited here shall be remitted within three weeks for adjustment towards the compensation amount."
The claimant - respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount which is kept in fixed deposit by order dated 20.4.1998 passed by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Satyam