JUDGMENT Ghanshyam Dass, J.
1. Judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981, passed by Sri V.S. Kulshrestha, the then IV Addl. District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh in Claim Petition No. 45 of 1978, Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. has given rise to the two appeals i.e. Appeal No. 269 of 1981 and Appeal No. 379 of 1981.
2. The learned Counsels for the parties have been heard and record is perused.
3. The matter relates to the accident which took place on 24.3.1978. The deceased Satya Narain Agarwal son of late Sri Panna Lal was travelling in Bus No. UPB 4567 vide ticket No. 39783 issued from Hathras to Aligarh which had the collision from truck No. UPB-4218, driven by the driver Raman, with the result that driver of bus and one woman died on the spot while the deceased Satya Narain Agarwal died on the same day at 8.45 p.m. in the hospital.
4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Appeal preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. is being pressed to show that no compensation should have been granted as the driver of bus was not negligent and in fact the driver of truck in question had been negligent while the appeal preferred by the claimants is to the effect that the compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below is not proper and in fact it should have been granted in toto to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- as claimed.
The finding of facts is being given by the Tribunal below to the effect that driver of bus in question had been negligent and not driver of the truck. This finding of facts is being arrived at just on the appreciation of the evidence on record. Nothing is being stated to show cogent reason for which it may be said to be vitiated. The learned Counsel for UPSRTC submitted that photos filed on behalf of it had not been relied upon by the Tribunal below on the ground that negatives had not been proved on the record. I feel nothing wrong in it. The submission does not appear to have been based on any law. The law is otherwise which is clear that unless negatives of photos are filed and proved on record, the photo only cannot be admitted in evidence and relied upon. It may be noted that driver of the bus in question died on the spot.
5. Thus it is concluded that Tribunal was right in holding the driver of bus in question to be negligent in driving the bus and not the driver of truck.
6. Now the only question which remains for consideration is about the quantum of compensation.
7. It is not disputed on record that the deceased was working with Laxman Dass in the firm Goverdhan Nath Oil Supplier which was registered under Sales Tax. The deceased was alleged to have income of Rs. 500/- per month. This income cannot be said to be excessive keeping in mind the fact of the deceased being in service of the firm paying sales tax and having joint account along with Luxman Das in Punjab National Bank vide Exhibit-12. The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants could not show any material evidence on record to enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal below to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- only keeping in mind the life expectancy, the income of the deceased and the family members to whom he was required to support besides himself. Not even a word has been suggested in the grounds of appeal to show reasons for enhancement of amount of compensation. Contrary to it the learned Counsel for UPSRTC submitted that no compensation should have been awarded as the deceased was a partner and the business continued even after his death, placing a reliance upon a case reported in AIR 1982 page 389 Om Prakash and Anr. v. Smt. Rukmini Devi and Ors. (Head Note 'C'). The raw laid down in the aforesaid case is to the effect that the heirs of the deceased who was a partner in the firm would not be entitled to the compensation for the reason the business of the firm continued. The situation is otherwise in the case in hand where the deceased is not shown to be the partner and hence the law quoted above does not render any help to the UPSRTC. Had the situation been like it that the deceased was shown to be a partner, the UPSRTC could claim that no compensation be awarded to the heirs. In the case in hand the deceased was not the partner but was only working with the firm having meagre income of Rs. 500/- only.
8. The next submission made on behalf of UPSRTC that bus was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company and hence the deceased who was passenger in it was entitled to a fixed amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- only cannot be accepted on the face of it because no evidence whatsoever was led on this count as held by the Tribunal below. Nothing otherwise was submitted by the learned Counsel for the UPSRTC who challenged this finding.
9. In view of above discussion, I conclude that learned Tribunal was right in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- only and no interference is called for on either side i.e.. either for enhancement of compensation or dismissal of the claim in tato.
10. Hence I conclude that both the appeals in question are devoid of any force and are dismissed accordingly and the judgment and decree of the Court below is hereby confirmed. The interim order passed in the instant appeal is hereby vacated. The statutory amount deposited in the instant appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal below within four weeks positively.