IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 147 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation …….Appellant. Versus Narayan Singh Rawat and others ……….Respondents. Ms. Sangita Myan, holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared for respondent No.2. Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.3. With A.O. No. 279/2006 Narayan Singh Rawat ………… Appellant. Versus Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and 2 others ………. Respondents. Mr. P.S.Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sangita Miyan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 3. None has appeared for respondent No.2. Dated: 31-7-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both this appeals arise out of the same judgment, dated 8-2-2006, passed by MACT/Addl. District Judge/ II F.T.C. Nainital in MACT Case No. 26/2005, therefore, these appeal are being decided by this common judgment. 2- The facts of the case as per the claim petition are that claimant Narayan Singh has retired from Indian Army from the post of Subedar Major and he had gone to Delhi to give interview for re-employment. On 25-4-2004 he was returning to Haldwani, from Delhi from Roadways Bus No. U.P. 2-B/4586. The driver was driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus 2 reached near Wet ‘Moar’ P.S. Simbhawali, Ghaziabad at about 8.30 A.M., truck No. HR 38/6575 dashed the bus from front side in a rash and negligent manner. The passengers of the bus sustained injuries. The claimant also sustained grievous injuries and his precious goods and documents also burnt in the said accident. According to the claimant he was returning back after giving interview and he was re-appointed on the post of J.C.O. at a basic salary of Rs. 6,600/- per month and on this scale he could get Rs. 13,000/- per month. He got calls for his training at Kerala, but due to fracture in his leg and left hip he was declared unfit in the medical test and he has become unfit to work on any post in future. The claimant also alleged that he remained admitted in Dr. Sushila Tewari Memorial Hospital, Haldwani for the period 25.5.2004 to 31.5.2004. He was referred to A.I.I.MS. Delhi, where he was admitted from 1.6.2004 to 25.6.2004 in connection with his treatment. According to him he remained under plaster for 1 ½ months. Therefore, he filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 21 lacs. 3- The opposite party No.1, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation filed written statement and alleged that there was no fault on the part of Roadways Bus driver. The driver of truck No. HR 38/6575 in order to overtake another vehicle dashed the bus in a negligent manner and caused accident. Therefore, the liability is upon the truck owner and its insurer. 4- The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of sufficient service of notice did not file any written statement and the case proceeded exparte against them. 5- The learned Tribunal framed issues in the petition. Thereafter claimant produced himself as P.W.1 3 and Dr. Girija Shankar Tripathi as P.W.2. Opposite Party also produced Paramjeet Singh Bus driver as D.W.1. Documentary evidence was also adduced. 6- The learned Tribunal after counsel for parties and considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- as compensation, 50% of which was directed to be paid by Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and remaining 50% by National Insurance Company the insurer of Truck No. HR 38/6575. Interest was not awarded. 7- Feeling aggrieved the Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. has preferred A.O. No. 147/2006, whereas the claimant also filed A.O. No. 279/2006 for enhancement. 8- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9- The contention from the side of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the driver of the Truck involved in the accident, hence the Corporation should not have been held liable to pay half of the amount of compensation. 10- The learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and it should be enhanced. 11- Perusal of record reveals that the claimant in his deposition has deposed that both the vehicles were rash and negligent in causing the accident. In his cross- examination also, this witness has reiterated this fact. From the side of opposite party, D.W.1, Paramjit Singh, 4 driver of the Roadways bus, has been produced before the Tribunal. This witness has although deposed that the Truck driver was trying to overtake another vehicle and dashed the Bus on wrong side, but this version is against the site plan filed on record. He further alleged that the truck driver had fled away from the spot. In the cross- examination this witness has stated that the Truck driver did not lodge any report against him. But he has stated about the release of his bus and obtaining his bail. Although the opposite parties owner of the truck and insurer of the truck did not contest the case, but from the documents field by the claimants, it is quite clear that the truck driver also filed F.I.R. of the accident on 26.5.2004. It has also come on record that the offending truck was insured with National Insurance Company and the driver had valid driving license. The Bus driver was also prosecuted in a criminal case U/Ss 279 and 338 I.P.C. and charge sheet was submitted against him by the police after investigation. In the site plan prepared during investigation it was found that the bus had travelled towards the side of the truck and there accident had occurred. However, from the evidence of P.W.1, Narayan Singh Rawat, an independent witness, it is quite clear that both the drivers were driving the vehicle in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability of both the vehicles in equal part. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the contributory negligence of both the vehicles in equal part. Therefore, the submission raised by learned counsel for the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has no force and the appeal filed by it is liable to be dismissed. 5 12- So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is also devoid of any force. 13- According to the claimant he has been re- appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500/- per month and he was to serve for 12 years had he not met with accident. The Tribunal on the salary of Rs. 6,500/- added other allowances of Rs. 11,000/- and after 1/3rd deduction assessed the annual loss of Rs. 90,000/- and looking to the age of the deceased adopted multiplier of 8, thereby the total loss comes Rs. 90,000/- X 8= Rs. 7,20,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards expenses of medical treatment, Rs. 15,000/- under the head of expenses of transportation charges, further sum of Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment, total being Rs. 8,60,000/- It has been proved that the claimant has suffered 32% disability due to the injuries, but he was declared unfit for the work for which was re- appointed. Therefore, the amount so awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said unjustified. In my opinion the Tribunal has awarded a justified amount towards compensation. I do not find any case for enhancement of compensation. The appeal filed by claimant for enhancement is also liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8-2-2006 is confirmed. 15- The statutory amount of compensation deposited before this Court at the time of admission of the appeal filed by Insurance Company, be remitted to tribunal concerned. 6 16- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 279/2006. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB