1. Heard Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants.
2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 28.02.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Allahabad in M.A.C.T. No. 412 of 2013 (Tehsildar Singh and Others vs. Alha Singh and Others) on the following grounds namely, deceased was a bachelor, therefore, 50% deduction should have been made from his notional income treating it to be the amount spent by the deceased on self. Another ground which has been taken is that deceased was not in any permanent job, therefore, future prospects should have been awarded @ 40% and not 50% and bus in question was under control of U.P.S.R.T.C., but it was not made a party. It is also submitted that route permit of the offending bus was not filed before the court below.
3. As far as aspect of U.P.S.R.T.C. being not made a party is concerned, it might have been a proper party, but not a necessary party.
4. Plea of non-filing of route permit is also of no relevance in the present case, inasmuch as it is not the case of the insurer that vehicle was run against the provisions of the route permit. Moreover, once a bus was attached with the U.P.S.R.T.C., then the requirement of route permit will lose its sanctity.
5. At this stage, Sri Anubhav Sinha places reliance on the judgment of Lucknow Bench of this High Court in case of U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager, 6 Sapru Marg, Lucknow vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager, Regional Office Balmiki Marg, Lalbagh, Lucknow, passed in F.A.F.O. No. 937 of 2009 delivered on 25.08.2010, wherein while dealing with Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, it has been held that vehicle which either owned by private individuals or by Corporation or by any authority can operate on a route in order to carry the passengers only when it holds a valid permit to use said vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place subject to conditions as mentioned in sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Act.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that provisions of sub section (1) are not applicable to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprises.
7. In this regard, clause (n), (o) and (q) of sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Act reads as under:-
"...........(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;
(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of, the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination;
(q) to any transport vehicle having been issued a licence under a scheme, under sub-section (3) of section 67 or sub-section (1) of section 88A, or plying under such orders as may be issued by the Central Government or by the State Government."
8. Hon'ble Division Bench has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in clause (q) of sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Act. Sub section (3) of Section 67 of the Act authorizes the State Government to modify any permit by notification in the Official Gazette to make schemes for the transportation of goods and passengers and issue licences under such scheme for the promotion of development and efficiency in transportation, in relation to the categories (a) to (m) provided thereunder.
9. When these provisions are read in conjunction with provisions contained in Section 103 which deals with issue of permits to State transport undertaking. In the State of U.P., after section 103(1), the following sub-section has been inserted, namely:?
"(1A) It shall be lawful for a State transport undertaking to operate on any route as stage carriage, under any permit issued therefor to such undertaking under sub-section (1), any vehicle placed at the disposal and under the control of such undertaking by the owner of such vehicle under any arrangement entered into between such owner and the undertaking for the use of the said vehicle by the undertaking."
10. Thus, it is abundantly clear that even a vehicle placed at the disposal and under a control of such undertaking by the owner of such vehicle under any arrangement entered into between such owner and the undertaking for the use of the said vehicle by the undertaking can be operated by a State transport undertaking on any route as stage carriage under any permit issued there for. No evidence was led before the tribunal that the bus in question was not having any valid route permit or was not attached to the U.P.S.R.T.C. under any arrangement/agreement. Therefore, this plea of not filing the permit deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
11. Another ground which has been raised is in regard to future prospects and deduction is concerned, there is substance in the argument put forth by learned counsel for the appellant. It has come on record that deceased Dileep Singh was working under a contractor of a Company of Maharashtra as 'Crane Operator'. This cannot said to be a permanent job, therefore, future prospects need to be computed @ 40% in the light of the law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Similarly, deceased was admittedly a bachelor, therefore, in place of 1/3rd deduction, 50% deduction should have been made from the accepted income.
12. When deduction @ 50% is made, then disposal income of the deceased in the hands of the claimants will come out to Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand rupees) per month or Rs. 72,000/- (seventy two thousand rupees) per annum on which there will be addition of 40% towards future prospects, taking total dependency to Rs.1,00,800/- (one lakh eight hundred rupees). Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17, taking age of the deceased to be between 26 years and 30 years, which is correct multiplier and when this multiplier is applied, then total quantum of pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 17,13,600/- (seventeen lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred rupees). Over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand rupees) under non-pecuniary head, taking total compensation to Rs. 17,43,600/- (seventeen lakhs forty three thousand six hundred rupees).
13. Tribunal has deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion rider. It has come on record that the motorcycle was driven by Dharmendra and not the deceased Dilip. Therefore, there will be no deduction on account of contributory negligence of Dharmendra. Therefore, award of the tribunal, deducting 50% on account of contributory negligence of driver of motorcycle will not be applicable in relation to Dilip, a pillion rider, therefore, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,13,600/- (seventeen lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred rupees).
14. In above terms, appeal is disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Vikram/-