Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1647 (ALL)

Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. U. P. S. R. T. C.

2023-07-11

K.J.THAKER

body2023
JUDGMENT Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. 2. By way of this appeal the claimant has challenged the dismissal of claim petition by the order dated 3.5.1997 passed by MACT/District Judge, Saharanpur, who dismissed claim petition No. 71 of 1988 preferred by the appellant for claiming compensation/damages to his taxi car bearing no. U.M.T. 7855 which collided with the bus owned by U.P.S.R.T.C. bearing no. U.H.I. 30, the accident resulted into death of three people and the vehicle taxi car was rendered not road worthy. As far as death claim were concerned claim petition nos. 64 of 1988, 65 of 1988 and 71 of 1988 were filed and are pending before M.A.C.T till the date of the judgment in this matter. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that appellant was the owner of the taxi car bearing no. U.M.T. 7855. On 26.12.1987 at about 3:00 p.m, his taxi was driven by one Prem Kumar at normal speed going from Roorkee to Haridwar when it reached at place of accident between Jwalapur and Bahadarabad a U.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing no. U.H.I. 30 of Dhurmalpur Depo hit the taxi of the appellant on the front side resulting in death of three people on the spot and caused damages to taxi of appellant. 4. The appeal challenges the non payment of compensation on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and not due to driving of the driver of the car and directed Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to pay compensation. 5. The taxi was the only vehicle by which the appellant could earn his livelihood, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as salvage was paid which was not just compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle. The vehicle in the year 1987, if the appellant wanted to buy a new vehicle for his survival it would have cost him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the remaining amount should have been ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C. 6. The finding contrary to the same are bad in eye of law. The vehicle in the year 1987, if the appellant wanted to buy a new vehicle for his survival it would have cost him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the remaining amount should have been ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C. 6. The finding contrary to the same are bad in eye of law. The cardinal principal under the provision of M.V. Act and as per law of torts once it is held that the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C was negligent, it goes without saying that the tribunal has to award compensation for the same. The amount of Rs. 58,000/- cannot be said to be full payment for the damages caused to the appellant. The vehicle had gone in total loss and therefore salvage was paid. This aspect has been overlooked by the tribunal while deciding the same issue. The judgment of Colonel Bheem Singh v. Rajnish National Insurance Company (1992) 1 Consumer (C.P.J) page 205 also goes to show that claimant is entitled to the deficit amount of Rs. 76,500/- with 6% rate of interest. The submission of Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had settled the dispute with the insurance company and therefore, U.P.S.R.T.C. has rightly not been saddled with any liability by tribunal, this submission cannot be accepted as it is for the tort feasor to do the good for the wrong, this is not double benefit but the deficit has been asked. In our case, the tribunal has held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the bus of U.P. being driven rashly and negligently and therefore, the contradictions has arisen because of non consolidation of matters. Claim petition nos. 64 of 1988 and 65 of 1988 were allowed holding that the driver of the bus was negligent, therefore, the tort feasor has to make good the deficit. In that view of the matter the appellant had been reimbursed only by the insurance company for the salvage but for the torturous act for loss of business it is tort feasor who has to make good and therefore this order. The appellant had taken a loan on the said vehicle which had to be also fulfilled. The findings of the tribunal are perverse and are set aside. The appellant had taken a loan on the said vehicle which had to be also fulfilled. The findings of the tribunal are perverse and are set aside. The bills have been produced and therefore this additional sum will have to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C is the owner of the vehicle for the tort of its employees. Rs. 58,000/- is paid by the Insurance Company is under other head as insured. The judgments of Consumer Forum would not be applicable. This appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle for damages caused to the vehicle and for the loss of business due to the said accident (tort committed) is allowed. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The tort feasor namely U.P.S.R.T.C will deposit an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 7% interest within 12 weeks from today before the tribunal. The amount shall not be kept in fixed deposit as long time has elapsed. 8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below forthwith. 9. This Court is thankful to Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C.