IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 244 of 2005 Smt. Rajwati … Appellant Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. & others … Respondents Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 11.05.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.T. No. 78 of 2002, Shiv Dehi & another Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.2002 the deceased – Roop Singh was coming to his home from Bareilly to Khatima in Bus No. UP25/7673. The bus was being plied under the supervision of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). When the deceased reached at his destination and wanted to get down from the bus, suddenly, the driver of the bus without any signal started the bus, due to which the deceased fell down from the bus and crushed under the wheel and died due to grievous injuries sustained by him in the said accident. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 50 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing the work of labourer. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased, therefore, filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement before the 2 Tribunal denying the factum of accident. It has also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is very exorbitant. 4. Opposite party No. 5 – Rajwati – present appellant also contested the claim petition alleging herself to be the wife of the pre deceased son of the deceased. She has further claimed that she was the widowed of the son of claimant No. 1 – Shiv Dehi and residing with her, therefore, she was also entitled for compensation. 5. The opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 also contested the claim petition by filing their written statement alleging therein that they were residing separately along with their husbands and they have no objection, if the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing leaned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 59,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimant No. 1 - Shiv Dehi from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 11.05.2005. The Tribunal further directed the that the awarded amount should be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C. to Smt. Shiv Dehi – wife of the deceased – Roop Singh who was the fathering-law of the appellant – Smt. Rajwati. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of Rampal S/o Roop Singh and Smt. Rajwati W/o Sri Gopal. 3 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the substitution application filed by the appellant – Rajwati during the course of the appeal before this Court. The substitution application shows that Shiv Dehi in whose favour the impugned award was passed, has died on 08.03.2006, therefore, none remained in the family of the Roop Singh who can said to be entitled for the amount of compensation expect the appellant, who is the pre deceased son of the deceased – Roop Singh. 10. The impugned judgment and award also shows that Jashoda W/o Ram Dayal and Smt. Hira Devi W/o Umesh Chand who are the daughters of the deceased – Roop Singh had already filed their written statement before the Tribunal stating therein that they do not claim any compensation on account of the death of Roop Singh in the motor accident. 11. The claim of the Ram Pal who is the major son of the deceased whose claim was dismissed by the Tribunal has not preferred any appeal before this Court. Now, the only surviving person who can be said to be entitled for the amount of compensation is Rajwati who is the wife of the pre-deceased son of the deceased – Roop Singh. I therefore, do not find any hurdle, in case, if the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is paid to Smt. Rajwati. 4 12. The Tribunal has calculated the amount of compensation along with an interest in a right manner. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal also appears to be justified and I do not find any ground to interfere in the same. 13. For the reason stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified up to the extent that the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the appellant Smt. Rajwati along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. If, any amount has been withdrawn by Smt. Shiv Dehi, then the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.11.2008 ASWAL