U.P.State Road Transport Corp. Kanpur Throu v. Smt. Indarana & Ors.

Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corp. Kanpur Throu R.M. Respondent :- Smt. Indarana And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Shekher Pandey, Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeeva Kumar Sinha Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard.

Instant first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Unnao (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.32 of 2011 in re: Smt. Indrana and others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C, a copy of which is part of memo of appeal. By means of the said judgment, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,87,500/- to the claimants along with 6% interest.

The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the impugned judgment is that as per two defence witnesses, who were produced by the appellant/defendant before the learned Tribunal, namely the Driver and the Conductor both of them did not state that any accident took place which fact has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment.

No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that the learned Tribunal in its judgment has categorically considered the evidence of the Driver namely Sri Rajendra Singh where in his cross-examination he has accepted that an accident took place from the vehicle namely Roadways Bus No. UP 78 BT 4640.

Learned Tribunal has also considered that the Driver has also stated that he had surrendered before the learned Magistrate in the criminal case no.5649 of 2010 lodged against him under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC and that a charge sheet has also been filed against him and he having also been granted bail in the aforesaid criminal case.

Thus, the ground as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant raising a challenge to the impugned judgment is found to be misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

The Court has also heard Sri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, by means of cross objections vide Cross Objection No.15 of 2013.

Sri Sinha has urged that although the learned Tribunal has accepted on the basis of consent given by both the parties of the deceased Sri Ram Prasad having monthly income of Rs.3000/- yet has patently erred in making deduction of 1/4th of the aforesaid amount towards expenses.

Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another - (2009) 6 SCC 121, the argument of Sri Sinha is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the number of dependent family members of the deceased exceed six then 1/5th of the amount should be deducted towards personal and living expenses and consequently prays that the deduction of 1/4th as directed by the learned Tribunal should be modified to 1/5th.

Sri Sinha also argues that learned Tribunal has patently erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects which in the instant case would be 30% of the income considering that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of his accident i.e. 05.09.2010.

In this regard, reliance has been placed on the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (11th Amendment) Rules, 2011 whereby Rule 220A has been inserted which provides in sub-rule (3) that the future prospects of the deceased are to be added in the actual salary or minimum wages, which in the instant case would be 30% of the income. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others - (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Having perused the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal it emerges that the learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenses but keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (supra) the same should be 1/5th considering the number of dependent family members. Likewise, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects which as per the amended rules should be 30% of the income considering that the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 42 years.

The impugned judgment and award is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extend.

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents. The remaining amount of compensation with interest as indicated above shall be paid to the claimants-respondents within 60 days from today. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench