IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 99 of 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. … Appellant Vs Sohan Lal Breja & another … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 30.10.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/4th Fast Track Court, Dehradun whereby the Tribunal decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2000, Sohan Lal Breja was traveling in Taxi No. UMT/8209 from Saharanpur to Haridwar. When the said taxi reached near village Sliyar, then the bus No. UP07E/2734 coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the taxi. The taxi driver and another person died at the spot while the other passengers were sustained injuries. The claimant – Sohan Lal was immediately admitted in the Roorkee, Hospital and thereafter referred to Delhi for better treatment. The claimant sustained serious injuries in this accident. At the time of the accident the claimant/injured was 54 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month by garment business. Therefore, the claimant/injured filed claim 2 petition before the Tribunal concerned for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues which were discussed at a great length. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- against the U.P.S.R.T.C. vide judgment and award dated 30.10.2004. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C. preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of contributory negligence. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has not decided the issue related to the contributory negligence. He has further submitted that the accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicles involved in the accident whereas the Tribunal imposed the whole liability upon the U.P.S.R.T.C., which appears to be erroneous and against the provisions of law. 3 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C. The Tribunal framed Issue Nos. 1 and 2 related to the rash and negligence jointly. The Tribunal has decided these issues in great detail. Sohan Lal (P.W.1) who was the eyewitness of the accident has stated that the driver of Taxi No.UMT/8209 was driving the said vehicle cautiously on his side, suddenly, Bus No. UP07E/2734 coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, collided with the said taxi. In this accident, the driver as well as another passenger died and other passengers sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal on the basis of the First Information Report, site map as well as considering the statement of the witnesses, come to the conclusion that on 22.06.2000 at about 09:30 p.m. the accident took place due to negligence of Vehicle No. UP07E/2734. The Car No. UMT/8209 was being driven by its driver on his side and the said bus coming to the other side and hit the said car due to which, the accident took place. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly held responsible to the bus for the accident. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal also committed illegality in relying upon the documents of expenses, alleged to have been occurred by the injured in his treatment, without proper verification and the claim tribunal has awarded the 4 compensation to the claimant/respondent against the provision of law. 9. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the same. According to the claimant/injured, he has incurred about Rs. 4.00 lacs in his medical treatment. The claimant has produced medical bill for Rs. 1,10,053/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,10,000/- under the head of medical expenses, further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of business and further awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards physical and mental agony. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. As I have already come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly imposed negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The amount of compensation is perfectly justified which cannot be interfered by way of this appeal. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2004 is hereby confirmed. 11. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.06.2008 ASWAL