IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 483 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation …… Appellant. Versus BhuwanChandra Tiwari and others .. Respondents. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 08-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 24-6-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 213/2005. 2- The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 12-9-2005, Smt. Mohani Tiwari was travelling in Bus No. U.P. 07-E-5930, owned by Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, from Tallital to Bhowali. When the said bus stopped at Masjid Bend on Bhowali road near Sanitarium and Smt. Mohani Tiwari got down from the bus in order to catch another bus going towards Gethia, the driver of the bus No. U.P. 07-E-5930, without care and caution drove the bus and crushed Smt. Tiwari and she died instantaneously at the spot. The deceased at the time of accident was employed as Assistant Matron in T.B. Hospital, Gethia and her monthly salary was Rs. 16,010/-. The claimants filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. fifty lacs for the death of the deceased. 3- The Opposite Party/Uttaranchal Transport Corporation contested the claim by filing written statement and denied the allegations of the claimants. It 2 alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the deceased. According to Opposite Party, at the place of occurrence when the deceased got down from the bus, she started running backside of the bus, on the signal of conductor the driver started the bus and in the meantime the deceased was crushed by the bus. It also alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed. 4- The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter, parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,29,640/- as compensation to the claimants payable by Opposite Party/appellant and directed to deposit the amount within 30 days, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to get interest @6% per annum till the actual date of payment. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- I have heard Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the record. 7- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in holding responsible the driver of the Bus for causing the accident and thereby allowing the claim petition against the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that exorbitant amount of compensation has been awarded and the same should be reduced. 3 8- On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants/respondents vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment and award. He has contended that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the driver of the offending bus and the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding based on evidence on record. On the point of quantum of compensation, he again supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the material supplied by the claimants on record and in accordance with the norms given in the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the award does not require interference. 9- I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The Tribunal has framed issue No.1 on the point of rash and negligence. From the side of claimants P.W.1. Sri B.C. Tiwari has stated that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. He also alleged that the driver without taking care of the passengers, who have got down from the bus at the place of accident, drove the bus and crushed the deceased. Although D.W.1, Birbal Tamta, driver of the offending bus has stated in his statement that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the deceased as she was crossing the road, but he has admitted that criminal case U/Ss 279, 304-A I.P.C. is going on against him and he has to obtain bail from Court. This fact itself gives strength to the allegation of the claimants that the driver was rash and negligent. Had the driver of the offending bus taken requisite care of the passengers who have got down at the place of the occurrence, the accident could have been 4 avoided and it appears that the driver without taking precautions of the passengers, who have got down from the bus at the place of accident, drove the bus at fast speed and crushed the deceased. The Tribunal also took note of the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., site-plan, inquest report, etc and came to the conclusion that the deceased had died due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver. On the basis of above evidence on record, I endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal and hold that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Bus. 10- As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, claimants have filed salary certificate paper No. 5-C/6, according to which Smt. Mohani Devi was getting Rs. 16,010/- salary per month. The annual income on the basis of salary certificate comes to Rs.1,92,120/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs. 1,20,080/- per annum. The deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident and the Tribunal adopted multiplier of ‘8’ provided in Schedule-II appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby the total dependency comes to Rs. 1,20,080/- x 8= Rs.10,24,640/-. The Tribunal also awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, to which the claimants are entitled to get. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 10,29,640/-. I do not find any illegality and error in the calculation of compensation amount. 11- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24-6-2006 is confirmed. 13- The statutory amount of compensation deposited at the time of admission of appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6