Partly allowed

General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and Another v. Smt. Saritpal and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021FAFO/96/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order was disposed of by allowing the appellant to correct the compensatory calculation. The court rejected the plea that the bus was falsely implicated due to a six-day delay in FIR registration, noting driver admissions and lack of police complaint. However, the court revised the dependency claim by deducting 1/4th of income for non-dependents, r

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced by Rs. 1,13,400/-, total adjusted to Rs. 9,77,200/- with Rs. 70,000/- non-pecuniary.

General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 96 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam And Another Respondent :- Smt. Saritpal And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Rishi Bhushan Jauhari

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Mayank Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. being aggrieved of award dated 29.10.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur in MACP No. 175 of 2018, mainly on two grounds namely, vehicle has been falsely implicated, inasmuch as FIR was lodged after six days of the incident, which allegedly took place on 15.04.2018 and secondly, that parents of the deceased cannot be considered to be dependent on the deceased, therefore, 1/4th deduction is arbitrarily made by learned tribunal.

¶7

Sri Mayank Singh, in his turn, submits that there is evidence given by PW3, an eye-witness about the incident, which was though denied by the defendant witnesses DW1 and DW2, in their examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination, they have admitted that bus had travelled through the spot where accident took place on the fateful day. Reading such evidence, it is submitted that parents, who lost their young son aged about 24 years, were in shock and if there is delay in lodging the FIR, that too only to the tune of six days, then that is not fatal to deny the claim, as has been awarded by learned claims tribunal.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, plea of false implication is not made out. DW1 and DW2 have admitted in cross-examination that offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP 27 T 4982 was taken to the spot, inasmuch as the route of the bus is 'Bareilly Mod, Puttulal Chauraha to Hathauda Chauraha to Shahjahanpur Bus Station. DW2 also admitted that on the said date and time, bus had travelled on the route, on which accident took place. DW2 also admitted that chargesheet was filed against him and he obtained bail from the court concerned. PW3 has proved the accident and their being no contradiction, plea of false implication is not made out especially, when the driver of the

¶9

offending vehicle has not complained about any false implication to any superior officer of police or of his department.

¶10

As far as plea of incorrect deduction is concerned, that needs to be accepted and corrected. Tribunal has accepted income of the deceased at Rs. 54,000/- (fifty four thousand rupees) and has added 40% towards future prospects, taking income to Rs. 75,600/- (seventy five thousand six hundred rupees). A sum of Rs. 25,200/- (twenty five thousand two hundred rupees) i.e., 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards living expenses of the deceased, inasmuch as his parents cannot be considered to be dependent on the deceased and therefore, there will be only three dependents namely, his wife and two minor children. Thus, total dependency of the family will come out to Rs. 50,400/- (fifty thousand four hundred rupees). Admittedly, deceased was aged about 18 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 will be applicable, taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 9,07,200/- (nine lakhs seven thousand two hundred rupees). Over and above which, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand rupees) under the head of nonpecuniary compensation. Thus, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- (nine lakhs seventy seven thousand two hundred rupees) in place of Rs. 10,90,600/- (ten lakhs ninety thousand six hundred rupees) awarded by learned tribunal. Therefore, there will be reduction to the tune of Rs. 1,13,400/(one lakh thirteen thousand four hundred rupees) in the amount of compensation awarded by learned tribunal.

¶11

6. With the above modification, appeal is disposed off.

¶12

If any amount is deposited by the insurance company, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it be remitted to the claims tribunal to be adjusted from the claim amount.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 Vikram/-

General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and Another v. Smt. Saritpal and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and Another v. Smt. Saritpal and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samrendra Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Shahid and 2 Others

Asha Soni and Another Vs Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly Vs Ram Sewak and 4 Others

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Thru Its Secy. Vs Moti Ram Deceased and 2 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banwari Lal and Others