Dismissed

U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow through Its Managing Director and Anr. v. Smt. Neena Gurnani and Ors.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024FAFO/167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal petition challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting compensation for a fatal bus-motorcycle accident. The Upper Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as misconceived and baseless, upholding the Tribunal's findings on the time of the accident and the calculation of the deceased's monthly income derived from Income Tax Returns.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal was dismissed with costs and the impugned award was remanded to the Tribunal for adjustment.

U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow through Its Managing Director… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66674

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 167 of 2020

¶4

Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Through Its Managing Director And Anr. Respondent :- Smt. Neena Gurnani And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ambika Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Verma,V.S.Chauhan,Vineet Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Vineet Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for claimant/ respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶7

This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.9, Lucknow in M.A.C. No.419 of 2017; Smt. Neena Gurnani and another versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation and others, by means of which the claim petition has been allowed and compensation of Rs.22,17,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident in question had occurred on 24.03.2017 at 11:30 A.M., as per the FIR of the accident, whereas P.W.-2, who appeared as an eyewitness stated in his evidence that the accident had occurred at 12:30 P.M. but without considering this contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-2, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition. He further submits that the deceased was an employee in Saisun Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. as a RM Backend

¶9

Executive and as per the pay slip filed by him, he was getting Rs.8890/- as basic salary and after adding the HRA and other allowances, he was getting total Rs.15,207/-, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly and illegally accepted the salary as Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas excluding the allowances his salary was Rs.8890/- only. Therefore, the compensation has been awarded in excess of the earning of the deceased on the higher side, which is against the record. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is liable to the allowed and the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent no.1 submits that the P.W.-2 has stated in his evidence before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred at 11:30 A.M. but inadvertently and due to typographical error, the same has been mentioned as 12:30 P.M. in the impugned judgment and award. He further submits that the claimants/ respondents have placed on record the copies of Income Tax Returns of the deceased for three years as paper nos. C 25/3, C 25/4 and C 25/5 disclosing therein that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,68,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively and just before the date of accident his annual income was Rs.1,80,000/-. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law accepted the income of Rs.15,000/- per month and awarded the compensation.

¶11

On the basis of above, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award and the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13

The claim petition was filed by the claimants/ respondents under Section 165, 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs.53,00,000/with the allegation that on 24.03.2017 while Varun Gurnani was going to his office on Motorcycle No. U.P.-32 FT 2086 from Alambagh, Lucknow towards Kanpur i.e. from his home to his office and reached the Sardari Kheda Masjid in Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow, the Bus No. U.P.-75 AT 2212 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came on the wrong side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and later on, he died. The FIR was lodged vide Case Crime No.86 of 2017 under Section 279 and 304A IPC at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed for compensation which was contested by the respondents by filing their written statements denying their role in the accident and claiming that no accident took place by the Bus, therefore, the liability to pay compensation does not arise.

¶14

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed by the Tribunal and thereafter, the evidence was adduced by the parties.

¶15

P.W.-2 appeared as an eyewitness, who proved the fact by deposing that the accident had occurred on 24.03.2017 at 11:30 near Sardari Kheda Masjid, LDA area under Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants to create doubt about the veracity of the evidence of P.W.-2 is that he has stated that the accident had occurred at 12:30 in the noon, which is recorded in the impugned judgment and award at internal page no.5, whereas perusal of evidence of P.W.-2 indicates that he has stated that the accident had occurred at 11:30. Therefore, the contention of

¶16

the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived and not tenable and is liable to be rejected and rejected accordingly.

¶17

So far as the second ground taken by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record of the Tribunal, three ITRs of the deceased as paper no. C 25/3, C 25/4 and C 25/5 dated 26.09.2014, 26.09.2014 and 31.08.2015 for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, which indicates that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,68,000/-, 1,80,000/- and 1,80,000/- respectively. The accident had occurred on 24.03.2017 and the last ITR was filed on 31.08.2015, which indicates that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,80,000/-, according to which the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/and made the calculations accordingly and there is no illegality or error in it. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard is misconceived and not tenable and liable to be rejected and rejected accordingly.

¶18

In view of the above, the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to the dismissed.

¶19

The appeal is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶20

The statutory amount deposited before this Court alongwith interest and the lower court record shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith and in any case, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶21

The statutory amount be adjusted towards payments to be made to the claimants/ respondents as per the impugned judgment and award.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow through Its Managing Director and Anr. v. Smt. Neena Gurnani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow through Its Managing Director and Anr. v. Smt. Neena Gurnani and Ors.

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

Jamuna Prasad @ Yamuna Prasad Vs Harilal

Smt. Prem Kumari and Others vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar, Secy. Lko. Development Authority Lko. and Another

Muneshwar Prasad Verma vs Shri Ram Avtar, Finance Controller (Agri. Deptt.), U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko.

Mohd. Jaheer vs Abdul Gaffar

M/s Vedic Projects Private Ltd. Thru. Director Gaurav Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secretary/ Prin. Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home and Others