Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager, Aligarh and Sri Mohd. Asim Zulfikar, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants.
Appellant has assailed award dated 13.11.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Aligarh in Claim Case No.83 of 2009 on two grounds, namely, no accident had taken place with the offending bus bearing Registration No. UP 81 N 9302. It is also submitted that even factum of accident is accepted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of motorcycle on which deceased was riding. Taking these submissions forward, it is submitted that the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
Sri Mohd. Asim Zulfikar, on behalf of claimants submitted they have filed cross-objections filing of which is reported to be delayed by 7 years 8 days. He submitted that this being benevolent legislation and claimants being illiterate, his delay in filing of cross-objection be ignored and appropriate enhancement be made in the claim amount under the head of future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.
After hearing learned counsel for the claimants on delay condonation application in support of cross-objection, delay in filing the cross-objection is condoned subject to the condition that claimants will not be entitled to any interest in case this Court finds them eligible for enhancement for the period of delay.
After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties on the merits of the award, it is apparent that DW-1 driver of the offending bus has admitted that he had not contested the claim that no accident had taken place with his bus. He had not reported this fact either with the police station or to his department. It has also come on record that DW-1 Ram Kripal Singh admitted fact of the accident so also the spot map. It has also come on record that evidence of PW-2 eye-witness could not be controverted through any effective cross-examination in the hands of learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. Therefore, as far as plea of false implication is concerned, that gets negativated in the light of the evidence of DW-1-Ram Kripal Singh, driver of the offending bus.
As far as plea of contributory negligence is concerned, there is no such evidence on record to substantiate this plea as has been put forward by learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. before this Court.
Therefore, as far as appeal filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. is concerned, it has failed to point out from records any illegality or arbitrariness in the award calling for interference, therefore, their appeal fails and is dismissed.
As far as plea of the claimants is concerned, tribunal has accepted income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per year. It has also accepted age of the deceased to be 26 years. Deceased was married and is survived by his wife, mother and father, therefore, one third deduction is to be made from this accepted income which will take family dependency to Rs.24,000/-. Over and above which there has to be addition of 40% towards future prospects taking annual dependency to Rs.33,600/-. As admittedly, deceased was 26 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.5,71,200/-. Over and above this, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs.6,41,200/- against a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be an addition of Rs.2,23,700/-. Claim petition was filed in the year 2009 but cross-objections were filed with a delay of about 7 years and 8 days, therefore, it is directed that this enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% only for a period of 3 years and not from the date of filing of claim petition.
It is directed that out of this enhanced amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will go in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Devi, mother of the deceased and remaining amount of Rs.1,73,700/- be given to the claimant no.1-Smt. Priti Devi, wife of the deceased and be invested along with interest in a monthly recurring deposit account of a scheduled bank or India Post Office with a stipulation that for a period of six years she will be only entitled to withdraw interest amount and not the principal amount.
In above terms, appeal and cross-objections are disposed of.
Let the record of the tribunal be sent back.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Ravi/-