State Road Transport Corporation, Fort Depot, Agra U.P v. Laxmi Narayan S/o Late

Judgment

3. Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal, R/o Village Chhilchhilwadi, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur Raj. C/o Budha Ram, S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Desora Bodhai, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra U.P. ---- Claimant/Respondent Yashpal Singh, S/o Ram Singh, R/o Jawabajivpur, Police Station Java, District Aligarh U.P. ----Non-claimant/Respondent

Smt. Lal Dei Widow of Late Shri Lakhan Singh, R/o Village Chhilchhilwadi, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur Raj. ----Performa/Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 948/2011 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman, Represented through Officer-In, Utter Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Fort Depot, Agra U.P. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus

3. Smt. Lal Dei Widow of Late Shri Lakhan Singh, R/o Village Chhicharwadi, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur Raj. ----Claimant/Respondent Yashpal Singh S/o Ram Singh, R/o Jawabajivpur, Police Station Java, District Aligarh U.P. ----Non-claimant/Respondent Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal, R/o Village Chhicharwadi, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur Raj.. C/o Budha Ram S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Lodha, R/o Desora Bodhai, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra U.P. ----Performa/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/07/2025

1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated [2025:RJ-JP:24950] (2 of 5) [CMA-976/2011]

22.08.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Bharatpur) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') in MACT Case Nos.481/2008 and 495/2008, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants have been partly allowed and awarded a compensation of total Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in both the claim petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/respondents filed two claim petitions before learned Tribunal stating that the deceased- Manju, who was 12 years old, lost her life in a road accident on 27.08.2007. The accident involved a bus, owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), bearing registration no. UP-80A-W-9400, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant/respondents Lal Dei and Laxmi Narayan being mother and the brother, respectively, of the deceased filed two separate civil petitions Nos. 481/2008 & 495/2008. The learned Tribunal decided both the claim petitions by a common judgment, awarding separate compensation of Rs. 1,12,500/- to each of the claimant.

3. In both the cases, the non-claimant/appellant filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and inter alia submitted that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in prudent manner and the accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. [2025:RJ-JP:24950] (3 of 5) [CMA-976/2011]

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues. In the claim petition claimant/respondent examined witnesses as AW-1 Badan Singh and AW-2 Lal Dei and produced ten documents [Ex. 1 to Ex. 10].

5. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/appellant examined four witnesses as NAW-1 Budha Ram, NAW-2 Laxminarayan, NAW-3 Yashpal Singh and NAW-4 Kamal Singh.

6. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant/respondents and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum vide order dated 22.08.2009.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated

22.08.2009, the non-claimant/appellant has preferred this present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for non-claimant/ appellant submits that the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. He submits that learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. He further submits that the award amount is excessive as in case of death of a minor, since, there is no loss of income as such, hence, a fix compensation amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- should have been awarded, therefore, prayed for modification of the impugned award.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:24950] (4 of 5) [CMA-976/2011]

10. From bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that deceased- Manju, who was 12 years old, lost her life in a road accident which involved a bus, bearing registration no. UP-80A-W-

9400. The learned Tribunal after examining the fact and charge- sheet (Ex.2) has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver which is owned by UPSRTC and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. The arguments advanced by learned counsel non-claimant/appellant that a fix compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- should have been awarded, lack merit.

11. In the matter of Kishan Gopal & anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. reported (2014) 1 SCC 244 and in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand @ Nemchand Mahto & ors. reported in 2022 INSC 1080 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of death of a child having age of 12 years a higher compensation should be awarded. If the facts of the case are examined in the light of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Kishan Gopal (Supra) and Meena Devi (Supra) the compensation amount awarded on the death of a child is on a much higher side i.e. Rs,5,00,000/- than the awarded sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, but as there is no cross appeal has been filed by the claimants, this Court refrains from enhancing the compensation, hence, the awarded sum of Rs.2,25,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive in any manner. [2025:RJ-JP:24950] (5 of 5) [CMA-976/2011]

12. Taking note of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity.

13. The present appeal filed by the non-claimant/appellant is devoid of merits and both the appeals are hereby dismissed.

14. Record of the Court below be sent back.

15. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. DEEPA-6-7 (MANEESH SHARMA),J