Smt. Sheela Devi and Ors v. Sahjad Ahmad and Ors., whereby, the said claim petition was partly allowed and th

the appellant in M.A.C.P. Case No.126 of 2006 Smt. Sheela Devi and Ors. Vs. Sahjad Ahmad and Ors., whereby, the said claim petition was partly allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,56,000/- as compensation @7% interest per annum against the appellant from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.19.05.2006 and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of one month before the Claims Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on

10.03.2006, the husband of respondent No.1 Late Rambharose was coming from Moradabad to Village Sarkada Karim Thakurdwara in a Mini Truck No.UP 25/6648, when the said mini truck reached near village Ramuwala Ganesh on Thakurdwara Moradabad road at about 02:30 PM, the driver of Bus No.UP 21/2005 (21- AN-3058) driving the bus at high speed and carelessly hit 1 the mini truck from behind, due to which the mini truck fell and overturned and husband of the respondent No.1 sustained serious injuries and died during treatment.

3. The first information report of the accident was registered on 10.03.2006 at Thakurdwara Police Station, District Moradabad as FIR No.322 of 2006 under Sections 279, 304A, 337, 338, 427 IPC. The husband of the respondent No.1 was a healthy man of about 50 years and used to work as Mason in his village and nearby villages, from which he used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month. Due to his untimely death, respondents/claimants had suffered mental, financial and physical loss, thus, they had requested compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- from the appellant (owner of the vehicle), driver and the Insurance Company jointly and separately.

4. Despite sufficient time given to the respondent No.6/driver of the bus, no reply was filed and against him an order was passed ex-parte on 31.01.2008 and again, on 03.06.2008, the said ex-parte order was cancelled on the application made by the driver. But after that neither any reply was filed by him nor did he appear. Hence, an order for ex-parte proceedings was passed against the driver.

5. Respondent-Insurance Company in its written statement also denied the averment made in the claim petition and pleaded that the accident was the outcome of the negligence, on the part of the driver of mini truck, and the deceased was travelling illegally in it, due to which the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation. 2

6. Appellant in her written reply submitted that she was the registered owner of the bus No.UP 21/2005 (21-AN-3058) till 31.12.2005 and she had surrendered the said bus to the concerned Transport Authority due to loss in business and personal reasons and the said bus had never run in any road since 01.04.2004. The respondent had made the appellant party just to get the compensation.

7. The learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 3 issues on the basis of pleading of the parties, which are reproduced as below: (1) Whether the alleged accident occurred on 10.03.2006 at about 02:30 PM, at Village Ramuwala Ganesh at Thakurdwara Moradabad Road, P.S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, by driver of bus no. UP 21/2005, while driving rashly and negligently and by hitting the mini truck Tata 407 No.UP-25/6648? (2) Whether at the time of accident, the driver of bus No.21/2005 have a valid and effective driving license? (3) What reliefs are the parties entitled to. If yes, from which opponent and for how much amount?

8. After going through the material available on record and the evidence of the parties adduced during trial, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by reason of the impugned judgment and award dated 18.05.2012 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,56,000/- @7% interest per annum against the appellant from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.19.05.2006 and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of one month before the Claims Tribunal.

9. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and award dated 18.05.2012, the appellant (owner of the aforesaid bus no.UP-21/2005) has preferred this appeal before this Court under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act,

1988. 3

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of respondent No.1 died due to the negligence and rash driving of the driver of mini truck No.UP 25/6648. He further submits that the appellant, by now, has deposited a total amount of Rs.2.80 Lakhs before the Tribunal concerned, the details whereof have been enumerated in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the appellant, deposited by her on 04.07.2016.

11. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that there is no illegality impugned judgment and award dated

18.05.2012, as the husband of respondent No.1 was died due to the negligence and rash driving of the driver of the bus no.UP-21/2005.

12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the plea of contributory negligence now raised by the appellant neither was pleaded nor did prove before the learned Claims Tribunal. No evidence whatsoever was adduced to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Raising such a plea for the first time at the appellate stage, without any factual foundation in the learned Trial Court, renders it legally unsustainable and liable to be disregarded.

13. Furthermore, under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Claims Tribunal is empowered to award compensation that is just, fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the accident and its impact on the dependents of the deceased. It is not in common in such cases that the victims come from financially deprived backgrounds, where the untimely 4 loss of a family member – often a primary earner – results in substantial economic hardship. The compensation awarded in the present case is in consonance with these settled principles and cannot be said to be either incisive or unjustified.

14. In this view of the matter, I do not find force in the instant appeal and consequently, the same is dismissed.

16. No order as to costs. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the learned Trial Court for consignment. Statutory deposit and any other deposits made by the appellant-owner before this Court or before learned MACT concerned be remitted and be paid to the respondents-claimants forthwith.

20.08.2025 (Pankaj Purohit, J.) PN 5