Allahabad High Court
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Smt. Bindu Kumari & 3 Ors. on 26 November, 2019
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 135 of 2005 Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Thru Chairman & Anr. Respondent :- Smt. Bindu Kumari & 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Tewari,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,J.B. Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
As per office report dated 01.11.2019, it indicates that the service on the respondents no.1 to 3 is sufficient but the service on the respondent no.4 is not sufficient.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondent no.4 is driver of the appellant Corporation and accordingly the notice on the respondent no.4 be dispensed with.
In view of the above, no fresh notice on the respondent no.4 is required to be taken.
The Court has heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondents, accordingly considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2005, the Court has proceeded to hear this appeal on merits.
The submissions of Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as under :-
(i) It has been submitted that despite the fact that none of the claimants witness could identify or give the bus number yet the tribunal has held that the accident occurred with the bus of the Corporation;
(ii) The tribunal has not discussed the evidence of the defence and in absence thereof the finding returned in respect of issue no.1 stands vitiated.
In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, certain brief facts giving rise to the above appeal are being noticed herein after.
On 27.03.1997, Diwakar Prasad a resident of village Arar Pakar, police station Dehat Balrampur, District Balrampur was moving on his cycle towards his village at Namopurwa. However, at the relevant time a roadways bus bearing number UML-9922 coming from Bahraich, hit the cyclist as a result Diwakar Prasad received grievous injuries and he also died. The eye witnesses, namely, Brij Bahadur Mishra @ Babban Mishra and Ram Dularey Yadav had seen the accident which was reported to the police at around 8.30 p.m. the same evening and it is in light thereof that the claim petition bearing number 25 of 2001 came to be instituted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Balrampur. The claim petition was contested by the Corporation and it primarily took the defence that no accident took place from the vehicle in question.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed two issues. However, while dealing with the issue no.1, it recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing number UML-9922. While arriving at the aforesaid finding it considered the evidence of the claimants including the statement of the eye witnesses as well as it took note of the documentary evidence in the shape of First Information Report, Postmortem Report as well as the fact that the said driver Noor Ali was chargesheeted for the same accident. Thereafter the tribunal while considering the material on record assured the compensation has awarded a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- to the claimant alongwith 6% interest by means of the award dated 08.11.2004.
The appellant, as already noticed above, has challenged the award primarily on the grounds as mentioned herein before. Upon considering the material available on record this Court is of the view that merely because the claimants did not mention the bus number would not be enough to discredit testimony of such witnesses coupled with the fact that the eye witnesses clearly mentioned that he had seen the accident which had occurred by a roadways bus. The time of the accident is said to be around 6.30 p.m. and the report was lodged with the police at 8.30 p.m. and it is during this time that the deceased who was taken to nearby hospital had also expired, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay or an after thought in so far as lodging of the report is concerned. It is not disputed that in terms of the report, investigation was made and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the Corporation who was driver of the bus number UML 9922.
In view of the aforesaid material available on record, it could not be disputed by the appellant the fact remains that the involvement of the bus was not there. Merely because the claimants witness did not identify the bus number, will not be enough to hold that the finding recorded by the tribunal on issue no.1 as far as the identity of the bus is concerned, suffers from any error.
In so far as the second limb of submission is concerned, this Court finds that the claim petition is to be decided in a summary fashion and detailed evidence is not required to be considered. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that once the foundational facts regarding the accident and its occurrence was proved then merely because some evidence of the defendant has not been discussed, will not make the award susceptible for reversal especially when the appellants could not point out any evidence which was discarded by the tribunal and if considered would give a whole new dimension to the case or would result in reversal of the award.
The Apex Court in the case of Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2019 (37) LCD page 333 as well as Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another, in Civil Appeal No.1665 of 2019, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 195 has categorically laid down the principles upon which the claim petitions have to be decided.
Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is satisfied that the finding returned by the tribunal by means of award dated 08.11.2004 which is based on record, does not require any interference. The appellant could not point out any infirmity which requires indulgence of the court to reverse the aforesaid award. No other point has been pressed. The Court is satisfied that the award dated 08.11.2004 is just and proper and requires no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consigned to record.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 ank