Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1040 (ALL)

Best Roadways Ltd. v. Kunti Devi and Another

2013-04-05

RAJES KUMAR

body2013
Rajes Kumar, J.;— Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an Appeal filed by the UPSRTC, the owner of the bus, bearing registration No. UP-95-B-2359, challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, Hamirpur, dated 26.10.2012, in MACP No. 38 of 2012, by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,02,000/=. It was the case of the claimant that one Ram Sewak was going on his bicycle to his Village Kumhaunpur. When, on Rath Road, he reached infront of Dhyanidas Mahavidhyalay, the aforesaid Bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle, as a result of which Ram Singh died on the spot. He was a massion and was aged about 55 years. The case of the appellant was that the accident has been caused due to the negligence of Ram Sewak and not due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is also excessive. I have perused the impugned order. Before the Tribunal, during the course of the hearing, two passengers, who were sitting in the Bus, were produced. They categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus to which no contrary evidence has been brought on record. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident has been caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus is based on the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis. The finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking the age of the deceased at 55 years, applied the multiple of eight. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.3,000/= per meonth and after deducting 1/3rd, estimated the loss of income at Rs.1,92,000/=. I do not find any error in awarding the compensation. The compensation awarded is based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In view of the above, no interference is called for. In the result, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. The compensation awarded is based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In view of the above, no interference is called for. In the result, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. The office is directed to remit back the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within four weeks. _____________