Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 182 (UTT)

Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Oriental Insu. Co. Ltd.

2016-04-28

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. Feeling disgruntled from the impugned judgment dated 12.02.2008, rendered by the Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, these appeals have been filed by respective owners of the Bus and Truck. Although, the Claim Petition, filed by old parents of the deceased, was allowed granting the compensation of rupees twelve lakh five thousand and liability was fastened upon two different insurance companies (Oriental Insurance Company for the Bus and New India Insurance Company for the Truck, 50% each) with a liberty to the companies to recover the amount (if, so desired) from the respective owners of the vehicles. The basis of granting such liberty has stated in the impugned judgment that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of both vehicles by their respective drivers, hence the insurance companies will be at liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owners. It can unequivocally be said that every accident is the result of some rash and negligent driving, so the findings of learned Tribunal is quite infirm in this regard and I hereby set aside the same. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment, passed by the Tribunal, is modified to some extent, nay the amount, so awarded, will be disbursed to the old parents immediately after breaking the TDR and en-cashing the same, which has been made inasmuch as for 25 years by the orders of the Tribunal. There was no reason for directing the TDR for such a long period because if this is permitted to happen, then the old parents can never be in a position to utilize this amount during their life time. In AO No. 176 of 2010, the compulsory statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned along with 3% annual simple interest, which it would have earned in ordinary course of nature. Delay condonation application (CLMA 8957/2010) and Cross-objection (CLMA 8960/2010) in AO No. 206 of 2008 stand disposed of.