Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2994 (ALL)

U. P. S. R. T. C. LUCKNOW v. PRABHA DEVI

2016-08-31

KRISHNA MURARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the “Act”) has been filed by the appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short “U.P.S.R.T.C.”) challenging the judgment and award dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Mainpuri awarding a sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- alongwith 7% simple interest as compensation for death of one Raj Kishor in a motor accident. 2. Facts as set out in the pleadings of the parties are that on 16.6.2013 at about 12.40 p.m. when Raj Kishor was standing on the southern side of G.T. Road Bebar Kanpur Marg in front of shop of Jhabbulal, the offending bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. belonging to Banda Depot having registration No. U.P.-95B-2015 hit him which resulted into grievous injuries. The victim was firstly taken to primary health centre, Bebar from where he was referred to district hospital Mainpuri and on account of serious condition, he was referred to P.G.I., Saifai where he underwent treatment. However, on account of further seriousness in his condition, he was referred to Agra on 17.6.2013. He remained admitted at Rainbow Hospital from 17.6.2013 to 31.6.2013 where his right leg was amputated below knee. He was discharged from the hospital and returned to his home. But when his condition started deteriorating he was again admitted to Mainpuri Hospital which referred the patient to Agra Medical College. While being taken to Agra on 13.11.2013, he died. The postmortem was conducted on 14.11.2013. On these allegations, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 69 Lac alongwith 12% interest. The appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. contested the proceedings by filing written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it was admitted that the offending bus belong to Banda Depot, and was plying on Agra - Banda route. It was also stated that Ramesh Kumar Kushwaha was the driver of the offending bus and Rajesh Shukla was the conductor and the accident was not caused due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle and was a result of the negligence of the deceased who was driving a motor cycle. The driver of the offending bus (respondent No. 10) also filed a written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. The driver of the offending bus (respondent No. 10) also filed a written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. He, however, admitted in the additional pleas that at the time of the accident he was driving the bus but denied his negligence in accident. He also reiterated the stand taken by the U.P.S.R.T.C. that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. 3. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. 4. On the question of quantum, in the absence of any cogent evidence to establish the income of the deceased alleged in the claim petition, the Tribunal presumed his notional income Rs. 3000/- and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses determined the dependency of Rs. 27,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applying a multiplier of 14 determined the compensation Rs. 3,78,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 5000/- to the wife for loss of consortium. The Tribunal, after analyzing the bills and vouchers produced by the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 3 Lac towards medical expenses and Rs. 10000/- towards transportation charges. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- was awarded as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the accident took place on 16.6.2013 whereas the death took place on 13.11.2013 and there being no direct connection between the accident and death which took place after 5 months, the death cannot be attributed to the accident and the Tribunal has committed an illegality. It is also submitted that the deceased was unemployed and the respondent-claimants could not prove his income and Rs. 3000/- notional income fixed by the Tribunal for determining the compensation is on the higher side. It is also submitted that since the cause of death of the victim was due to septicaemia, therefore, the death cannot be connected to the injuries caused by the accident and the Tribunal has wrongly held the death to have arisen from the accident. 6. We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The appellant as well as the driver of the offending bus admitted the accident though the case set up by both was that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. The Tribunal while returning the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, has relied upon the oral testimony of the P.W. 3 Radhey Shyam who was an eye-witness and stated in his examination-in-chief that just adjacent to shop of Jhabbulal, he has a shop by the name of M/s. Om Printer and the accident took place on the southern side at the end of road and he was present and saw the accident from a distance of 10 ft. The Tribunal found his testimony to be intact and unshakable in the cross-examination. Thus, it was conclusively proved by the statement of an eye-witness that the accident took place while the deceased was standing at the side of the road and talking to his friend. 7. In case the bus, which is supposed to be driven in the middle of the road, comes to one side and hits someone standing at the end of the road, the only inference which can only be drawn that the driver of the offending bus is rash and negligent. Thus the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in recording this finding. 8. The accident having been established due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the only issue needs to be examined by us, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, whether the cause of death, which admittedly took place after 5 months of the accident, can be attributed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The record reflects that the victim immediately after the accident was taken to a primary health centre from where he was referred to P.G.I., Saifai and on account of grievous injuries subsequently he was referred to higher centre at Agra. His right leg was amputated during treatment at Agra. Subsequently, he was discharged and brought back home. The record reflects that the victim immediately after the accident was taken to a primary health centre from where he was referred to P.G.I., Saifai and on account of grievous injuries subsequently he was referred to higher centre at Agra. His right leg was amputated during treatment at Agra. Subsequently, he was discharged and brought back home. However, when his condition started deteriorating he was again hospitalized but looking to the seriousness of the conditions he was again taken to a higher centre at Agra and while being taken there he died on the way. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that he died of septicaemia is accepted what is to be analyzed is what could be the cause of septicaemia. Obviously, the injuries sustained in the accident. No other reason has been put forward by the appellant to even remotely indicate that there could be any other reason for septicaemia except for the injuries sustained in the accident. 9. In case the death has been caused due to septicaemia on account of injuries sustained in an accident, in our considered opinion, unless there is evidence to the contrary on record to establish any other reason for cause of septicaemia, the death can be held to be directly attributable to injuries sustained in the accident. Merely because the victim of the accident dies after a time gap and there is evidence on the record to demonstrate that during this period he was continuously undergoing treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident and there is no other reason available on record to which death can be attributed the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. will not be absolved from its responsibility merely on the ground that death has occurred after a time gap from the accident. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not liable to be sustained. So far as the challenge to the question of quantum on the ground that notional income of Rs. 3000/- presumed by the Tribunal for determining the compensation is on the higher side, is also without any basis or substance. Admittedly, the accident took place on 16.6.2013. So far as the challenge to the question of quantum on the ground that notional income of Rs. 3000/- presumed by the Tribunal for determining the compensation is on the higher side, is also without any basis or substance. Admittedly, the accident took place on 16.6.2013. It is a matter of common knowledge and judicial notice can also be taken note of the fact that by that time, there has been a substantial increase in the cost price index and even the income of daily labourer per day was much more than Rs. 100/-. Thus, we do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in presuming the notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month for determining the compensation. No other ground was urged or pressed before us. In view of aforesaid facts and discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned award warranting any interference at the behest of the appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The appeal fails and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.