Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Vineeta Saraswat And 3 Others on 23 February, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 144 of 2021 Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- Smt. Vineeta Saraswat And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for appellant-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
2. This appeal has been filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. being aggrieved of award dated 30.10.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura passed in MACP No. 534 of 2016, on the ground that bus has been falsely implicated and in the application, which was submitted to the police authorities, name of the eye-witness is that of a real brother of the deceased. Reading evidence of the driver of the offending bus, it is submitted that bus was standing, when the deceased on his motorcycle came from the opposite side, driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the standing bus then accident took place. Thus, on two premises, this appeal has been filed namely, false implication of the bus and absence of any independent eye-witness.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the documents annexed by the appellant, it is evident that in Para-21 of the impugned award, testimony of the driver of the bus has been examined. This bus driver has admitted that he had left the bus at the place of the incident and thereafter, police administration had brought bus to the Police Station-Harduaganj. This is a material piece of evidence against the appellant, inasmuch as if there was no mistake of the driver, as has been alleged in the FIR, he was not rash and negligent in driving the bus, then there was no occasion for him to abandon the bus after accident. Further, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that they did not examine any independent witness i.e., any of the passengers, who were travelling in the offending bus. In support of their contention, bus was standing and driver of the motorcycle had hit the bus by driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. Even, in the cross examination of PW2, nothing substantial has been brought on record to show that this witness is planted.
4. At this stage, Sri Jitendra Kumar submits that this witness could not depose as to the color of the cloth, which was worn by the deceased at the time of the accident and this is a material omission. Such kind of rudimentary argument only reveals lack of preparedness on the part of the appellant and exposes hollowness of the claim put forth by the appellant in the appeal.
5. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award calling for any interference. Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Vikram/-