High Court · 2025

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

10. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel parties, it would be appropriate to briefly take a glance at the manner in which the accident occurred.

11. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.1.2007 at 2.00 a.m. the claimant who was the pillion rider and the motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P. 78AA-6118 was being driven by his brother in law(Sala) namely Sanjay Dixit. While they had reached near Hanuman Mandir on the GT road in Kanpur Cantt the Bus of roadways bearing registration no U.P. 32BN 9133 which was being driven rashly and negligently coming on the wrong side hit the motorcycle, as a result, the motorcycle and Sanjay Dixit fell on the left side whereas the leg of the claimant got entangled with the Bus in question and he was dragged, as a result, he suffered grievous injury over his body.

12. It is in this context that the claim petition bearing no. 262 of 2007 came to be filed. The same was contested by the UPSRTC and the written statement was filed indicating and denying the factum of the accident.

13. Upon exchange of the pleadings, the tribunal framed three issues. Parties led their evidence and thereafter the tribunal recorded a finding that the accident which occurred on 17.1.2007 wherein the claimant suffered grievous injury which resulted in amputation of left leg and multiple fracture on his left hand and also as a consequence he suffered 90% permanent disability which was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus owned by the UPSRTC bearing Registration No. UP32BN 9133 thereafter the tribunal went on to consider the quantum and by means of the award dated 5.12.2011 awarded a sum of Rs. 8,59,000 along-with 6% interest which is under challenge before this court in the instant appeal.

14. In light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, first and foremost it could be noted that the Sri Sanjay Dixit who was an eyewitness and who was driving the motorcycle was examined who clearly deposed that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing no. UP32BN 9133. The mere fact that the FIR came to be lodged almost after seven months for the reason that in terms of the said F.IR. the offending vehicle was found prima facie involved in the accident and the driver was also chargesheeted and a case bearing no. 233 of 2007 was pending before the appropriate court in this regard.

15. In the cross examination, the said driver of the UPSRTC indicated that he was released by the police on his personal bond and even though he was chargesheeted and the case was proceeding in the appropriate court but he denied the knowledge of the said case.

16. The record indicates that the claimant had filed the certified copies of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet indicating the pendency of the said case wherein the driver of the Bus was chargesheeted. Mere statement by the driver that he was not aware of the case does not take away the value of the said documents which were filed.

17. Another factor which can be seen is that the driver himself denied the factum of the accident and he also stated that the conductor of the Bus namely Sri K.S. Awasthi was also present and that there was no accident with the Bus in question, however the other best evidence that could have been produced by the corporation was that of the conductor of the Bus Sri K.S. Awasthi who was not examined.

18. The only witness on behalf of the Corporation was that of the driver and as already noticed above he would naturally give a statement not incriminating himself.

19. Be that as it may, the cross-examination of the said driver indicates that the Bus was available on the route where the accident occurred and therefore, it cannot be stated that the Bus was neither present at the spot nor could be identified specially when the eye-witness Sri Sanjay Dixit clearly identified the Bus.

20. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the appellant to cast a doubt over the testimony of the P.W. 2, however from perusal of the entire statement, it appear that there is no contradiction in the statement and slight variation in the statement cannot overshadow the consistency of his averments and deposition in respect of the accident.

21. Moreover, the claim petitions are to be decided not on the basis of the mathematical precision but on the basis preponderance of probabilities, taking into consideration the natural variation in the statement, however this Court finds that in the statement of PW. 2 and even in his cross-examination there is no inconsistency which can cast a doubt over the foundational facts of the factum of the accident and involvement of the Bus. In view thereof, this Court does not find that the tribunal has committed any error insofar as the finding relating to the involvement of the Bus and findings recorded related to the rash and negligent driving by the driver.

22. Insofar as the other issue raised by learned counsel regarding the vocation of the claimant is concerned, the claimant had examined the officials of the school who clearly deposed that the claimant was a regular employee and he retired on 31.7.2024.

23. This matter was heard by the Court on 31.7.2025, however the submission was raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent claimant was not working in the said school rather he was officiating as a Priest and that there was clear evidence led by the claimant himself as well as his brother in law. It is in this context that the court had required the learned Standing Counsel to get the said facts verified so that this Court could satisfy its conscience regarding the aforesaid fact. The order was passed on 31.7.2025 and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereinafter. "Considering the aforesaid, this Court has called upon Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel available in the Court to take a copy of the aforesaid two documents and get the same verified from the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air-force, Memora, Lucknow by a competent officer who would indicate whether Sri R.D. Pandey was the Principal who had issued the certificate on 10.09.2007 and

12.09.2007. He shall also confirm and verify whether the present respondent Sri Vijay Narain Agnihotri was working as a Lab Attendant, as a regular employee of the Vidyalaya concerned and was receiving the salary. It shall also indicate as to when the said employee retired or demitted office in the said school".

24. In furtherance thereof, the learned Standing Counsel has provided the letter dated 4.8.2025 issued by the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lucknow indicting and confirming the fact that the claimant was a regular employee who retired on 31.7.2004 and that he was granted extraordinary leave on medical grounds.

25. From the above, it could be clear that as far as the statement given by the claimant regarding the claimant being an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya is concerned stood established and that the testimony of the official of the school who appeared as a witness stood confirmed and the fact was also accepted by the tribunal.

26. It would also be relevant to notice that the official of the school had entered into the witness box to conform this fact as well as prove the salary certificate. Merely because the claimant was officiating as Priest does not create any shadow over his employment and working in the Kendriya Vidyalay.

27. Thus, for all the aforesaid reason, the findings recorded by the tribunal and discrepancy stated to be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant does not impress this Court and it is accordingly turned down.

28. Insofar as the last submission regarding the quantum of the amount awarded is concerned, if at all the multiplier as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant that it should be of 14 whereas the tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 15 and giving a sum of Rs 12000/- towards the leave for two extra months is concerned, if seen in the context with the kind of injuries suffered by the claimant coupled with the fact that at the time of the accident he was 42 years of age with 90% permanent disability with amputation of his left leg and multiple fractures on his left had which has rendered the functionality of the left hand almost a nullity, if considered , it would reveal that the test of functional disability which has been laid own by the Apex court in the cases of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, Kajal versus Jagdish Chand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Sidram versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, if applied herein to the facts of the instant case, it cannot be said that the amount as granted by the tribunal is excessive and does not meet the standard of just and fair compensation.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no error in the finding recorded by the tribunal. Accordingly the award dated 5.12.2021 passed in claim petition no. 262 of 2007 is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

30. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant with updated interest and any short fall shall also be made good by the appellant to the claimant to be paid within a period of 60 days after adjusting any amount already paid. The record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. Cost is made easy. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kanhaiya KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

10. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel parties, it would be appropriate to briefly take a glance at the manner in which the accident occurred.

11. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.1.2007 at 2.00 a.m. the claimant who was the pillion rider and the motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P. 78AA-6118 was being driven by his brother in law(Sala) namely Sanjay Dixit. While they had reached near Hanuman Mandir on the GT road in Kanpur Cantt the Bus of roadways bearing registration no U.P. 32BN 9133 which was being driven rashly and negligently coming on the wrong side hit the motorcycle, as a result, the motorcycle and Sanjay Dixit fell on the left side whereas the leg of the claimant got entangled with the Bus in question and he was dragged, as a result, he suffered grievous injury over his body.

12. It is in this context that the claim petition bearing no. 262 of 2007 came to be filed. The same was contested by the UPSRTC and the written statement was filed indicating and denying the factum of the accident.

13. Upon exchange of the pleadings, the tribunal framed three issues. Parties led their evidence and thereafter the tribunal recorded a finding that the accident which occurred on 17.1.2007 wherein the claimant suffered grievous injury which resulted in amputation of left leg and multiple fracture on his left hand and also as a consequence he suffered 90% permanent disability which was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus owned by the UPSRTC bearing Registration No. UP32BN 9133 thereafter the tribunal went on to consider the quantum and by means of the award dated 5.12.2011 awarded a sum of Rs. 8,59,000 along-with 6% interest which is under challenge before this court in the instant appeal.

14. In light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, first and foremost it could be noted that the Sri Sanjay Dixit who was an eyewitness and who was driving the motorcycle was examined who clearly deposed that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing no. UP32BN 9133. The mere fact that the FIR came to be lodged almost after seven months for the reason that in terms of the said F.IR. the offending vehicle was found prima facie involved in the accident and the driver was also chargesheeted and a case bearing no. 233 of 2007 was pending before the appropriate court in this regard.

15. In the cross examination, the said driver of the UPSRTC indicated that he was released by the police on his personal bond and even though he was chargesheeted and the case was proceeding in the appropriate court but he denied the knowledge of the said case.

16. The record indicates that the claimant had filed the certified copies of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet indicating the pendency of the said case wherein the driver of the Bus was chargesheeted. Mere statement by the driver that he was not aware of the case does not take away the value of the said documents which were filed.

17. Another factor which can be seen is that the driver himself denied the factum of the accident and he also stated that the conductor of the Bus namely Sri K.S. Awasthi was also present and that there was no accident with the Bus in question, however the other best evidence that could have been produced by the corporation was that of the conductor of the Bus Sri K.S. Awasthi who was not examined.

18. The only witness on behalf of the Corporation was that of the driver and as already noticed above he would naturally give a statement not incriminating himself.

19. Be that as it may, the cross-examination of the said driver indicates that the Bus was available on the route where the accident occurred and therefore, it cannot be stated that the Bus was neither present at the spot nor could be identified specially when the eye-witness Sri Sanjay Dixit clearly identified the Bus.

20. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the appellant to cast a doubt over the testimony of the P.W. 2, however from perusal of the entire statement, it appear that there is no contradiction in the statement and slight variation in the statement cannot overshadow the consistency of his averments and deposition in respect of the accident.

21. Moreover, the claim petitions are to be decided not on the basis of the mathematical precision but on the basis preponderance of probabilities, taking into consideration the natural variation in the statement, however this Court finds that in the statement of PW. 2 and even in his cross-examination there is no inconsistency which can cast a doubt over the foundational facts of the factum of the accident and involvement of the Bus. In view thereof, this Court does not find that the tribunal has committed any error insofar as the finding relating to the involvement of the Bus and findings recorded related to the rash and negligent driving by the driver.

22. Insofar as the other issue raised by learned counsel regarding the vocation of the claimant is concerned, the claimant had examined the officials of the school who clearly deposed that the claimant was a regular employee and he retired on 31.7.2024.

23. This matter was heard by the Court on 31.7.2025, however the submission was raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent claimant was not working in the said school rather he was officiating as a Priest and that there was clear evidence led by the claimant himself as well as his brother in law. It is in this context that the court had required the learned Standing Counsel to get the said facts verified so that this Court could satisfy its conscience regarding the aforesaid fact. The order was passed on 31.7.2025 and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereinafter. "Considering the aforesaid, this Court has called upon Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel available in the Court to take a copy of the aforesaid two documents and get the same verified from the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air-force, Memora, Lucknow by a competent officer who would indicate whether Sri R.D. Pandey was the Principal who had issued the certificate on 10.09.2007 and

12.09.2007. He shall also confirm and verify whether the present respondent Sri Vijay Narain Agnihotri was working as a Lab Attendant, as a regular employee of the Vidyalaya concerned and was receiving the salary. It shall also indicate as to when the said employee retired or demitted office in the said school".

24. In furtherance thereof, the learned Standing Counsel has provided the letter dated 4.8.2025 issued by the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lucknow indicting and confirming the fact that the claimant was a regular employee who retired on 31.7.2004 and that he was granted extraordinary leave on medical grounds.

25. From the above, it could be clear that as far as the statement given by the claimant regarding the claimant being an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya is concerned stood established and that the testimony of the official of the school who appeared as a witness stood confirmed and the fact was also accepted by the tribunal.

26. It would also be relevant to notice that the official of the school had entered into the witness box to conform this fact as well as prove the salary certificate. Merely because the claimant was officiating as Priest does not create any shadow over his employment and working in the Kendriya Vidyalay.

27. Thus, for all the aforesaid reason, the findings recorded by the tribunal and discrepancy stated to be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant does not impress this Court and it is accordingly turned down.

28. Insofar as the last submission regarding the quantum of the amount awarded is concerned, if at all the multiplier as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant that it should be of 14 whereas the tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 15 and giving a sum of Rs 12000/- towards the leave for two extra months is concerned, if seen in the context with the kind of injuries suffered by the claimant coupled with the fact that at the time of the accident he was 42 years of age with 90% permanent disability with amputation of his left leg and multiple fractures on his left had which has rendered the functionality of the left hand almost a nullity, if considered , it would reveal that the test of functional disability which has been laid own by the Apex court in the cases of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, Kajal versus Jagdish Chand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Sidram versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, if applied herein to the facts of the instant case, it cannot be said that the amount as granted by the tribunal is excessive and does not meet the standard of just and fair compensation.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no error in the finding recorded by the tribunal. Accordingly the award dated 5.12.2021 passed in claim petition no. 262 of 2007 is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

30. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant with updated interest and any short fall shall also be made good by the appellant to the claimant to be paid within a period of 60 days after adjusting any amount already paid. The record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. Cost is made easy. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kanhaiya KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench