1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is aggrieved of the award dated 19.03.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Aligarh in Claim Case No.552 of 2007 on the ground that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle when accident had taken place and, therefore, learned Tribunal erred in not dealing with the aspect of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, which resulted in the accident. It is submitted that accident took place when the motorcycle being driven rashly and negligently had come and hit the bus in question which was standing at village-Pilkhuni.
3. Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits that he has not filed any cross objection/cross appeal, but amounts under the head of future prospect and non pecuniary compensation be enhanced suitably. It is also submitted that incorrect deduction has been made which needs to be corrected, inasmuch as, deceased is survived by five legal heirs which include wife and four children.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the available record, it is apparent that learned Tribunal framed issue no.1 in regard to negligence and dealt with the evidence of P.W.-2-Bahadur Singh who supported the fact of the accident due to the negligence and rashness of the driver of the U.P. Roadways Bus.
5. This evidence could not be controverted by U.P.S.R.T.C in cross examination. Though, it has come on record that U.P.S.R.T.C. examined Mustaq Ahmad-driver of the bus and Rama Kant Pandey-conductor of the bus. Their evidence has been discarded by the learned Tribunal treating them not to be an independent witness and has computed the compensation.
6. Thus, the plea of the appellant that motorcycle riders were responsible for the accident, could not be substantiated through any independent witness and, therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference on this account.
7. As far as plea of the claimants is concerned, Tribunal has accepted Rs.3000/- to be the income of the deceased, therefore, in place of 1/3, 1/4 deduction will be made taking disposable income to be Rs.2250/- per month or Rs.27000/- per year. There will be an addition of 40% towards the future prospects taking annual dependency to Rs.37,800/-, on which multiplier of 17 will be applicable in place of 18 applied by learned Claims Tribunal taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.6,42,600/-(six lakhs fourty two thousand and six hundred). In addition Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8500/- under the head of treatment which is required to be added over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of non pecuniary compensation taking total amount of compensation to Rs.7,21,100/-(seven lakhs twenty one thousand and one hundred) against a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(four lakhs and fifty thousand) awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs.2,71,100/-(two lakhs seventy one thousand and one hundred).
8. However, this amount will not carry any interest as claimants have not filed any cross objections/cross appeal, but in the light of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case of Prahlad and others Vs. State of Maharasthra and another; AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 89 and with a view to do the complete justice between the parties, claim amount has been enhanced.
9. In above terms, appeal is disposed off.
10. Lower court record, if any be sent back forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Ashutosh