Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2553 of 2005 Appellant :- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- Smt. Kamlesh Kumari & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.T. Kulshreshtha,Saral Srivastava,U.K.Pushkar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This appeal is directed against the award dated 15th July, 2015 passed by the District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims' Tribunal, Aligarh allowing the claim petition of the claimants- respondents in MACP No. 222 of 2002 for compensation of Rs.8,31,600/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition and till the actual payment of compensation.
According to the claim petition, the deceased was travelling in a tempo bearing No.- U.P. 82/A 9358 on a fateful day dated 28th April, 2002 at around 5:00 am in the morning, a passenger roadways bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. R.J. 05-A 0891 being driven quite rashly and negligently, hit the tempo on middle of the road in which the constable Munesh Pal died along with the the tempo driver. The claim was set-up claiming that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/-.
The claim petition was contested by the appellant before the Tribunal on the ground that it was a case of negligence on the part of the tempo driver. The Tribunal framed issues with regard to the fatal accident and the involvement of the vehicle and recorded a categorical finding of fact to the effect that the accident did take place on 28th April, 2002 at 5:00 am in the morning by the bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hitting the tempo on Kasganj Sikandararau road of District Etah. It is also concluded by the Tribunal that from the evidence that has been led as the site plan, the testimony of the bus driver was not correct and it was not true that bus hit the tempo on roadside as has been stated by bus driver before the Tribunal. Considering the evidence both oral and documentary and the attending circumstances, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it was indicative of the negligence on the part of the bus driver only.
In view of the findings so recorded, the Tribunal made an award against the appellant.
In this appeal the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings returned by the Tribunal on the issue of the negligence on the part of the bus driver was not correct.
Having gone through the discussions as made by the Tribunal particularly in the light of the statement of the eye witness account and the testimony of the driver as well as the first information report lodged against the bus driver, no other conclusion could have been drawn. Had driver been innocent, he himself would have got first information report lodged instead of running away from the scene of the accident.
The second argument with regard to the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal is also not sustainable. The findings so recorded by the Tribunal could not be assailed by the appellant for any cogent or convincing reason. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court as to how the findings regarding the income and the assessment of the compensation considering the age of the deceased by the Tribunal was in any manner perverse or based on misreading of the evidence.
I do not find any manifest error or perversity in the findings of the Tribunal so recorded on the crucial issues.
The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- already deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the deposit to be made under the award.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Atmesh