Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Both the First Appeals From Orders have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988(hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1988') against the judgment and award dated 13.9.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr(hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88 of 1992 by which compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- alongwith 12% interest had been awarded to the claimant Netrapal Singh on account of injuries received by him in a road accident. Both the appeals were connected and with the consent of counsel for the parties are being decided by common judgment.

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant Netrapal Singh had filed claim petition under section 140 and 166 of Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- alongwith 18% interest on account of injuries received by him in a road accident which had occurred on 16.1.1992. It is alleged in the claim petition that the claimant is owner and driver of mini bus bearing no. DL-5C-4895 and was going to Meerut  from village Pittobans, District Bulandshahr and about 6:30- 7:00 a.m. on 16.1.1992 when he reached near 'pullia' of village Kaithala at Bulandshahr-Gulawathi road, all of a sudden Roadways bus bearing no. UGE-705 driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction (Gulawathi side) and dashed the mini bus of claimant who received grievous injuries in the accident. It is also alleged in the claim petition that on account of injuries the claimant has become permanent disabled and as per disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut he has become permanent disabled to the extent of 58%. The FIR was lodged on 17.1.1992 at 10 A.M. regarding the accident at Gulawathi Police Station. The age of the claimant was 26 years at the time of accident and his income was Rs.6000/- per month from transport business but on account of disability he is unable to do anything.

Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for claimant Netrapal Singh and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and perused the record.

The factum of accident has not been disputed by the parties but only the rash and negligence has been disputed by both the parties. The Tribunal had decided the issue of negligence holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and responsible for the accident and 60% liability has been fixed upon Corporation holding 60% negligence of driver of Corporation and 40% of the claimant holding his contributory negligence. The learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the accident had occurred on account of sole negligence of claimant and there was no negligence of Corporation driver. On the other hand, the learned counsel for claimant has submitted that the driver of Corporation was sole negligent and responsible for the accident.