IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. (1) A.O. No. 214 of 2005 Rafiq Ahamad and another … Appellants. Vs. Chamkor Das and 3 others …. Respondents. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangita Miyan learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. None has appeared for other respondents. (2) A.O. No. 261 of 2005 Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant. Vs. Rafiq Ahmad and 4 others …. Respondents. Mr. V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangita Miyan learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2. None has appeared for other respondents. (3) A.O. No. 417 of 2005 U.P. S.R.T.C. … Appellant. Vs. Om Prakash and 5 others …. Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None has appeared on behalf of the other respondents. (4) A.O. No. 220 of 2005 Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant. Vs. Harpal Singh and 5 others …. Respondents. Mr. V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangita Miyan learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for respondents. UDated: 11-8-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Similar controversy is involved in the above appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2 2- A.O. No.214/2005 and A.O. No. 261/2005, have been preferred against the same judgment and award dated 4-4-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ II F.T.C. Dehradun, in MACT No. 65/2004. In this case Taslim Ahmad was a pillion rider in Scooter No. CHO –K- 3286 and the driver of Bus No. U.P. 07-K- 9202 dashed the scooter from rear side due to which he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The Bus was being plied under the control of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,84,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 3- A.O. No. 417/2005 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15-6-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Judge/ IV F.T.C. Dehradun in MACP No.6/2001. In this case Smt. Urmila Gupta was standing near Ghantaghar Dehradun, suddenly Bus No. U.P. 07-G 9474 owned by U.P. S.R. T.C. came there at a high speed and dashed her, due to which she sustained grievous injuries and she was rushed to Kudiyal Nursing Home Dehradun where she was declared dead by the doctors. The offending bus was being plied under the control of U.P. S.R.T.C. It was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 11,92,689/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the U.P.S.R.T.C. 4- A. O. No. 220/2005 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 1-3-2005, passed by 3 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/II F.T.C. Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 239/2003. In this case Surendra @ Sonu was the victim. He was pillion rider on a scooter and the Bus U.P. 07-J-9507, coming from opposite direction near I.I.P. Gate Dehradun, dashed the Scooterist due to which driver of the scooter died at the spot and Surendra the pillion rider was admitted in the Hospital where he died after 5-6 days of the accident. The Bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and it was running under the control of the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 81,922/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of actual payment against the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 5- The main contention of the Oriental Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the offending bus in question were being driven under the control of the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation/ U.P.S.R.T.C. under an agreement with the real owner, and on account of the accident of the bus owing to negligence of the drivers death of the deceased has occurred, therefore, the liability does not lie on the shoulder of the Oriental Insurance Company with whom the buses were insured. 6- On the other hand the contention of the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation/U.P.S.R.T.C. was that the buses were insured with Oriental Insurance Company and at the time of accident the buses were having valid insurance cover; the buses were not being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the liability to pay compensation is on the shoulder of the insurer. 4 7- The learned Tribunal after framing relevant issues in the claim petitions and affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, came to the conclusion that as the offending buses at the time of accident were the control of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation/UPSRTC under some agreement with the actual owner, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation is upon them and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation according to the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari, reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 481. 8- Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and awards, the U.P. S.R.T.C. has preferred A.O. No. 417/2005, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred A.O. Nos. 220/2005 and 261/2005, whereas Rafiq Ahmad and another has preferred A.O. No. 214/2005 for enhancement. 9- Heard Mr. V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sangita Miyan, learned counsel for the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for claimant/appellant Rafiq Ahmad and perused record. None has appeared on behalf of the other respondents inspite of sufficient service. 10- The sole controversy in the appeals relates to the liability of payment of compensation. Perusal of impugned judgment and awards reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the driver of the offending bus caused the accidents with their rash and negligence driving. It is admitted that the buses were being plied under the control of the 5 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation/ U.P.S.R.T.C. under some agreement with the real owner and the buses were insured with Oriental Insurance Company, but in view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari, reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 481, the SRTC is vicariously liable to pay compensation, as the control of the bus was transferred by the owner to SRTC for plying the same under the instructions of SRTC and the accident occurred owing to negligence of the driver, resulting death of the deceased. The facts of the present cases are similar to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra). I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly imposed the penalty to pay compensation upon the appellant/SRTC. 11- Here it will not be out of place to mention that similar controversy has also been resolved by this Court in the judgment and order dated 18-6-2008 rendered in A.O. No. 501/2006. In the said case the Court has upheld the judgment and award of the Tribunal fixing liability of the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation to pay the compensation. 12- Therefore, the impugned judgment and awards passed against the S.R.T.C. cannot be said to be illegal and the appeals preferred by the S.R.T.C. are liable to be dismissed. 13- So far as the appeal preferred by claimants Rafiq Ahmad and Smt. Aasma for enhancement is concerned, the same also do not bear any merit. According to the claimants deceased Taslim Ahmad was unmarried son of the claimants. He was 20 years of age. The claimants have alleged that the deceased was doing 6 the work of a mason as well as a night watchman and his monthly income was Rs. 5,700/-. But no reliable evidence and document has been produced before the Tribunal in order to show the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the daily wage of the deceased at Rs. 100/- and monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, out of which half amount, i.e. Rs. 1,500/- was assessed the dependency of the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried and his father and mother were 50 years and 45 years of age respectively, hence the Tribunal was justified in assessing their dependency of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The multiplier of 10 has been adopted by the Tribunal on the above amount, which cannot be said on lower side, looking to the age of the parents. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. I do not find any substance in this appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement and the same is also liable to be dismissed. 14- In view of foregoing reasons, all the appeals preferred by the SRTC (A.O. No. 261/2005, A.O. 417/2005 and A.O. No. 220/2005) as well as the appeal filed by claimants Rafiq and another for enhancement (A.O. No. 214/2005) are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and awards are confirmed. 15- The statutory amounts deposited with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 16- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 261/2005, A.O. No. 417/2005 and A.O. No. 220/2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 7