Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 1420 (ALL)

U. P. State R. T. C. v. Savitri Devi

1991-11-20

B.DIKSHIT, N.L.GANGULY

body1991
ORDER N.L. Ganguley, J. - This first appeal From order arises out of the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal dated 22.3.1980 awarding Rs. 50,400/- to the claimants as compensation with 12 per cent interest. 2. The facts of the case are practically admitted. It is stated that bus No. UTY 2513 driven by Driver Uma Shanker, engaged by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 25.1.1978 between 6-30 to 7-00 A.M. while plying at Jaunpur-Mariahun pitch road in the early morning when it was thick foggy met an accident and dashed against a car bearing No. WMB 1193 coming from other direction, killing all the four occupants of the car. The bus of the corporation was driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently. It is said that in order to take over a bullock-cart the bus driver caused the accident dashing against the car killing all the four occupants of the car in the accident. The claim petition was filed on behalf of heirs and dependents of Algoo who had also died in the said accident. An amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimants. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Corporation. It was stated that the bus was driven at a moderate speed, there was no attempt to overtake the bullock-cart, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car which was coming from the other direction. The fact that the morning when the accident took place was thick foggy is not disputed. The claimants examined P.W. 1 Mohan Lal and P.W. 2 Ram Saran Gaur in support of their case, who stated that the bus in question was plying at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. The Corporation examined the Driver of the bus. Uma Shanker (D.W.1) and Ram Chandra Sinha (D W.2). The Driver stated in his statement that the bus was plying at a slow speed of 15-20 Kms. per hour, visibility was very poor and it was hardly 18-20 fts. He stated that the car was coming from the other direction with a very high speed of 70-80 kms. per hours, there was no bullock cart and it was the fast, rash and negligent driving of the car which caused the accident. The other witness Ram Chandra Sinha was a passenger in the bus which met the accident. He stated that the car was coming from the other direction with a very high speed of 70-80 kms. per hours, there was no bullock cart and it was the fast, rash and negligent driving of the car which caused the accident. The other witness Ram Chandra Sinha was a passenger in the bus which met the accident. The Tribunal below examined the oral evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of Mohan Lal P.W. 1 and Ram Saran Gaur was assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the ground that Mohan Lal was not named in the first information report and Ram Saran Gaur was not examined as a witness in the criminal case and hence their evidence was liable to be rejected. The Tribunal believed the version given by Mohan Lal P.W. 1 and Ram Saran Gaur P.W. 2. 3. We have examined the statement of the witnesses and appreciated the same. After assessing the evidence we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the version given by Mohan Lal and Ram Saran Gaur which proved that the bus in question was driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. In our opinion no interference can be made in respect of the finding of the Tribunal that the bus in question was driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. 4. The Tribunal after examining the evidence on record was of the opinion that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was about 40 years. The longevity in the family of deceased was found to be 70 years. Deceased Algoo was a Gold Smith by profession and was doing the business of gold smith shop. The monthly income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 700/- per month. The dependency was arrived at Rs. 560/- per month after deducting personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal below recorded a finding that the claimants were entitled for an award of Rs. 50,400/-. 5. The claimants have filed a cross objection. It has been said that the Tribunal below committed a manifest error of law in awarding a less amount of compensation by deducting an amount of Rs. 350/- per month on the ground that the son and brother of the deceased have now taken over the business of gold-smith shop after the death of Algoo in the accident. It has been said that the Tribunal below committed a manifest error of law in awarding a less amount of compensation by deducting an amount of Rs. 350/- per month on the ground that the son and brother of the deceased have now taken over the business of gold-smith shop after the death of Algoo in the accident. 6. After examining the evidence on record we are not in a position to accept the finding of the Tribunal below in respect of deduction of Rs. 350/- per month out of the amount of monthly dependency arrived at by the Tribunal itself. This is not justified or reasonable to say that since after the death of Algoo his son and brother took over the business of the deceased the dependency can further be reduced by Rs. 350/- per month. Had Algoo been alive his son and brother would have earned through other resources or engaged in some other business. Reduction of amount of dependency by Rs. 350/- per month on the ground that the son and brother of the deceased have started doing the business of deceased after his death is not justified. 7. The Tribunal found the longevity in the family of the deceased to be 70 years and the age of the deceased at the time of death to be 40 years. Thus, using multiplier of 30 it arrived at a figure of Rs. 75,600/-. On account of uncertainty of life it deducted l/3rd of the aforesaid amount which was calculated as Rs. 25,200/-. The final figure arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs. 50,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 8. We are of the firm view that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting Rs. 350/ per month out of the dependency computed by it. The cross objection to this effect is liable to be allowed and the amount of is to be calculated on the basis of the total amount of Rs. 560/- per month as the amount of dependency. The amount of dependency would be Rs. 6,720/- per annum according to the correct calculation. The amount of Rs. 6,720/-calculated above has to be multiplied by using a multiplier of 12 and we arrive at a figure of Rs. 80,640/- payable as compensation. We are informed that an amount of Rs. 560/- per month as the amount of dependency. The amount of dependency would be Rs. 6,720/- per annum according to the correct calculation. The amount of Rs. 6,720/-calculated above has to be multiplied by using a multiplier of 12 and we arrive at a figure of Rs. 80,640/- payable as compensation. We are informed that an amount of Rs. 25,000/ was directed to be deposited in pursuance of the interim order at the time of filing of the appeal. If that amount was deposited the balance amount of Rs. 55,640/- plus interest on the total amount of Rs. 80,640/- at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of award is liable to be paid to the claimants. 9. We thus, allow the cross objection and the first appeal from order filed by the Corporation is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.