Court No. -3 Judgment reserved On: 25.4.2019 Judgment Delivered on :31/5/2019
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1278 of 1999
Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Hari Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- ,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- ,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for appellant. None present for respondent.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 25.8.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut in MACP No.487 of 1998 awarding a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- with 12% rate of interest
3. The brief facts of the present litigation are that on 6.5.1998 the claimant-respondent Hari Singh accidentally came under the rear wheels of the appellant's bus No. UP-15-D-1695 at about 6.00 p.m. at Rani Mill, Delhi Road, Meerut. Claimant preferred a petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for having received injuries. He claimed that on account of the negligence driving of the bus, he sustained injuries resulting in permanent disability. As a result of the said accident, it is claimed that he is now incapable of earning. The appellant corporation defended the claim petition. It was contended that the bus was being driven very cautiously and carefully and at a very slow speed. However, anyhow the claimant came under the rear wheel of the bus on account of his own negligence and carelessness. It is submitted that the appellant corporation is not liable and has been wrongly held liable for the accident. It is further submitted that the accident took place because of the careless driving of the claimant himself. It is submitted that the claims Tribunal has disregarded the evidence of DW-1 and 2 the driver and conductor of the bus. It is further submitted that the claimant being 60 years of age, the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- is to excessive for the injuries which he has sustained in eye of law. It is further submitted that the multiplier of 18 and the interest at the rate of 12% is bad in eye of law.
4. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned without much elaborating on it the fact that the injured was going on his cycle when he reached near Rani Mill at that point of time, the driver of the bus came from behind and dashed the cyclist. The evidence of PW-1 i.e. the claimant himself shows that the bus came from behind and dashed with the injured. The driver accepted that accident had taken place and he submitted that fact that the accident occurred but contended that the injured came in the rear tyre shows that the bus was being driven at a very slow speed. This fact has not been accepted by the Tribunal looking to the nature of injures, the facts that the cycle has been damaged and that PW-1 has not accepted that he was in any way negligent. The principles of contributory negligence, cannot be applied in the facts of the case and the cyclist was not co-author of the accident as his evidence and injuries speak for themselves.
5. Hence, the submission that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Hari Singh cannot be accepted and is rejected.
6. This takes this Court to the question of quantum. The medical bills have been produced on record. The claimant had sustained 25% of functional disability. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.2,500/- per month thereby his income was considered to be Rs.30,000/- per year. As he had sustained 25% of disability, Rs.7500/- was granted as his loss of income per year and was multiplied by 8 looking to his age. He had produced medical bills of Rs.47,500/- and Rs.5,000/- was paid under the head of pain shock suffering. It cannot be said that his income has been considered to be on a very high side. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future loss of income. It has not awarded any amount under the head of other non pecuniary damages.
7. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellant that the the rate of interest should have been 9% and not 12%. I am in agreement with the same. The amount shall carry 9% rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. However, the 3% shall be adjusted towards the non grant of pecuniary damages.
8. The appeal stands partly allowed. While admitting this appeal the appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The rest of the 50% be deposited with 9% rate of interest within 12 weeks from today. The rest of the amount be released to the claimants or his heirs.
Order Date :-31.5.2019/Mukesh