IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 349 of 2005 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation …Appellant Versus Arun Saxena & others ... Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for appellant Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Dated: August 1, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 9.11.2004 passed by MACT/5th Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in MACC No. 42 of 2000, Arun Saxena vs. Sanjeev & others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 25.4.99 claimant was going to Moradabad by Vehicle No. U.P.015/F-9484 and when the said vehicle reached near Electric Sub- Station in village Majhaula, it collided with Vehicle No. U.P.2C-7058 of U.P.S.R.T.C. and in the said accident claimant sustained injuries on his person. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,26,200/- as compensation against opposite parties. Opposite party no. 5-UPSRTC contested the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the amount of compensation. It had denied that vehicle of UPSRTC was being plied rashly and negligently, as a result of which claimant sustained injuries. 2 Opposite party no. 6-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contested the claim petition denying the factum of place, date and time of accident and also pleaded that if any accident had occurred, it was the result of contributory negligence of both the vehicles involved in the accident. It has also pleaded that amount of compensation is excessive, which the claimant is not entitled to. It has further pleaded that opposite party no. 6 is not liable to pay compensation as drivers of both the vehicles were not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Rest of opposite parties were not represented by anyone, hence an order was passed on 26.11.2001 to proceed exparte against opposite parties no. 1 to 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.78200/-, in favour of claimant, against the opposite party no. 5-UPSRTC, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/UPSRTC has preferred the appeal before this Court. 3 Heard Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant-UPSRTC, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in fastening the liability upon it to pay the amount of compensation, as no fault has been proved on the part of driver of bus of UPSRTC. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal also committed illegality in awarding 6% interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the application till the date of actual payment without recording any reason. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the record reveals that the learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that on 25.4.1999 the accident occurred at Majhaula near Electric Sub Station, Moradabad, for which drivers of Vehicle No. U.P.0015/F-9484 and Vehicle No.U.P.2C/7056 are equally responsible and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligence of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, the Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it awarded a just and proper amount of compensation, which needs no interference. As far as interest part is concerned, 4 the same also appears to be justified and requires no interference by this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 5