Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2072 (ALL)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. U. P. S. R. T. C.

2015-07-23

ANANT KUMAR, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Since both the Appeals have been filed against the same judgement and award, as such, both are being heard and decided by a common judgment. 2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.07.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / ADJ-1, Lucknow (for short 'the Tribunal'). 3. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present case, are that an accident occurred with a bus running on undertaking of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'UPSRTC') bearing no. UP 42 T-1066, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, as a result of which the father of the claimant Dinesh Pratap Singh, who was traveling alongwith his wife on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. UP 41 F 7260, on the left side of Lucknow-Faizabad National Highway and when he reached near Village Udhauli, Police Station Safdarganj, District- Barabanki at about 10.30 hours and when he was talking to somebody his motorcycle was hit from the back side by the alleged bus in which Dinesh Pratap Singh and his wife received grievous injuries, as a result of which, they died. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Safdarganj, District ? Barabanki at Crime No.480/06, under Section 279 /304A/427 I.P.C. and their bodies were sent for postmortem. The investigation followed and the claimants filed claim petition for claiming compensation by impleading insurance company as one of the respondents. The evidence was led by the parties and after considering the evidence of the respective parties, the award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 16.07.2011. Hence, these appeals. 4. The said award has been challenged primarily on the ground that the permit which was filed before the Tribunal was a photostat copy and the same was not got proved and the said permit also does not indicate vehicle number and therefore, the said permit cannot be said to be in respect of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. 5. Sri Akhtar Abbas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC has submitted that the permit which was issued to the UPSRTC by the Regional or State Transport Authorities does not require mention of the vehicle number on the same. The permits are granted by Regional or State Transport Authority in respect of notified route or area. 5. Sri Akhtar Abbas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC has submitted that the permit which was issued to the UPSRTC by the Regional or State Transport Authorities does not require mention of the vehicle number on the same. The permits are granted by Regional or State Transport Authority in respect of notified route or area. Only the number of permits are given by the Transport authority in respect of notified route or area. Apart from it, nothing more is required to be mentioned and it is the prerogative of the UPSRTC to engage the buses and ply them according to need on a particular route. 6. He has placed reliance upon Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") read with Rules 9 and 10 of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Service (Development) Rules 1974 (for short "the Rules of 1974") to emphasize the procedure, which is to be adopted in grant of permit in respect of a particular route by the UPSRTC. He submits that there is no requirement of mentioning the vehicle number on the permit and, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that vehicle number was not mentioned in the permit has no force. 7. The counsel for the claimants has also appeared and states that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He also states that the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any manner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The only point which has been put forward by Sri B.C. Pandey, learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the permit filed before the Tribunal was a photostat copy and the same was not got proved by anybody and the same does not contain any number of bus. The aforesaid argument has to be considered in the light of provision contained under the Act. Section 103 of the Act is as under: “103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings.? The aforesaid argument has to be considered in the light of provision contained under the Act. Section 103 of the Act is as under: “103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings.? (1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State transport undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V. (2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order,? (a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending; (b) cancel any existing permit; (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to; (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2).? Subject to the condition that it should be in operation on the issue of permit to the UPSRTC in respect of notified area or notified route. Rule 2 of The U.P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 contains 'Definition' which reads as under : (1) ‘Act’ means the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. (2) "Corporation" means the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. (3) "Form" means a form appended to these Rules. Rule 2 of The U.P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 contains 'Definition' which reads as under : (1) ‘Act’ means the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. (2) "Corporation" means the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. (3) "Form" means a form appended to these Rules. (4) "General Manager" means General Manager of Corporation and includes any other officer who may be authorised by the corporation to perform the function of the General Manager. (5) "State Government" means the Government of Uttar Pradesh. (6) ‘State Road Transport Service? means a road transport service by transport vehicles owned by or placed at the disposal and under the domain and control of the corporation. Thereafter, Rules 9 & 10 of the U.P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 deal with the situation for grant of permit and lease to the State Transport Undertaking, which are as under: - "9. Application for permit on behalf of the Corporation, Section 68-F and 68-1(2) (CC).- The Regional Manager or the Assistant Regional Manager, or such other officer as may be authorised by the General Manager shall have the power to apply on behalf of the Corporation for permits under /sub Section (1) of Section 68-F of the Act. 10. Application for permit for services of stage carriage, Section 68-1(2) (CC).- (1) An application for stage carriage permit or public carrier permit or a contract carriers permit in respect of notified route or notified area in pursuance of an approved scheme shall be made on behalf of the State Transport undertaking in form III. (2) Upon receipt of an application under Sub-rule (1) the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may issue a permit to the State Transport undertaking for the notified route or notified area accordingly. (3) Every permit issued as aforesaid shall be in two parts, namely Part 'A' and Part 'B' and be in Form IV. (4) the permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the scheme remains in force." 10. (3) Every permit issued as aforesaid shall be in two parts, namely Part 'A' and Part 'B' and be in Form IV. (4) the permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the scheme remains in force." 10. The procedure provided under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 is very clear and explicit, which says that as and when an application under Sub-Rule (1) is made, the State Transport Authorities or Regional Transport Authorities, as the case may be, may issue a permit to the State Transport Undertaking for the notified route or notified area accordingly. 11. Counsel for UPSRTC has laid emphasis on the words “notified route or notified area” are the only requirement as contemplated under the Act and to substantiate his case, he has further drawn the attention of the Court towards Form IV Part A of the permit. Form IV part A goes to indicate that notified route or notified area is the only requirement and nothing more than that. And the requirement is also to the same effect that the State Transport Authorities or Regional Transport Authorities are required to issue permit to the State Transport Undertaking indicating notified route or notified area. 12. Once the requirement for issuance of permit for notified route or notified area has been made, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that bus number must be mentioned on the permit cannot be accepted and neither termed to be statutory requirement as contemplated under the Act or Rules. The further argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the said permit has not been proved. It is to be noted that photostat copy of the permit was filed by UPSRTC. The UPSRTC happens to be a public body. The custodian of the original record is the said public body and, therefore, attested photostat copy of the same has been filed by UPSRTC before the Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be said that it is not a correct document and the same cannot be considered. 13. Section 169 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunal is supposed to make an inquiry under Section 168 of the Act. The Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure, as it thinks fit. 13. Section 169 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunal is supposed to make an inquiry under Section 168 of the Act. The Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure, as it thinks fit. The aforesaid provision provides power to the Tribunal to make inquiry regarding the factum of accident, however, there is no hard and fast rule for the Tribunal to make such an inquiry. The strict rules of evidence does not apply in the case of Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the permit filed by the UPSRTC cannot be said to be doubtful or requiring further elaboration in any manner. 14. Both the appeals have no force and they are accordingly dismissed.