Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 46 of 2006 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- Maya Devi Counsel for Appellant :- M.M. Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- V.D. Ojha,D.K.Srivastava,Dr. H.N. Tripathi
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and award dated 26.3.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in M.A.C.P. No.34 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,35,000/- along with 12% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents.
The claim petition was instituted by claimants/respondent nos.1 to 4 for the death of one Brijendra Singh who met with an accident on 17.10.1990 with Roadways Bus No.U.P-78-9768 coming from opposite direction.
The only issue which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding of the Tribunal in respect of negligence of driver of Bus No.U.P-78-9768 is illegal and against the record. He submits that admittedly, it was a case of head on collision between truck and bus and appellant had produced the driver of the bus who has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that in the said accident, there was negligence of the deceased in the accident.
He further submits that driver of the bus has categorically stated that he had taken due care in driving the vehicle, and while crossing over the stationery truck standing on the left side of the road, he gave dipper to the truck but the driver of the truck, i.e., deceased, did not take care to stop the truck, rather he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused the accident.
Per contra, Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel respondents submits that cleaner of the truck had appeared before the Tribunal and deposed that driver of the truck was driving the truck carefully and cautiously, and on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of bus, accident had occurred. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered the site plan of the accident in detail and as per the site plan, it is also established that the accident was the outcome of the sole negligence of the driver of bus.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The cleaner of the truck has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus. The driver of the bus did not take due care, due to which accident had occurred. The Tribunal in detail has considered the site plan of the accident which was not disputed by the appellant and the Tribunal found the testimony of cleaner of the truck was corroborated from the site plan in respect of the manner of accident depicted in the site plan. After considering the site plan and other evidence on record, Tribunal did not believe the testimony of driver of the bus. The Tribunal while holding the negligence of the driver of the bus has correctly appreciated the evidence and material on record.
In this view of the fact, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue of negligence of driver of bus is a finding of fact and the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the appeal.
Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-, if not remitted, shall be remitted to the Tribunal within one month.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Sattyarth