IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 252 of 2005 Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation …Appellant Versus Smt. Manju Bhatt & others ... Respondents And Appeal Against Order No. 383 of 2005 Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation …Appellant Versus Smt. Usha Rawat & others ... Respondents Sri V.K. Bisht, senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for appellant Sri Prabhat Pande, Advocate for respondents Sri Manoj Mohan, Advocate for cross-objector/Smt. Usha Rawat Dated: August 1, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since both the cases are arising out of the same judgment and award and common question of fact of law is involved in both the cases, as such, they are being decided by the common judgment. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 15.4.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/2nd Fast Track Court, Nainital, in MACP No. 84 of 2004 whereby the claim of the claimants was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of 2 Rs.10,10,000/- and UPSRTC was directed to pay the same. The claimants-Smt. Manju Bhatt and others had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 27.2.2004 while the deceased-Mahim Kumar Bhatt was going to Haldwani from Baldiyakhan by Bus No. U.P.06-4140 of UPSRTC, approximately at a distance of two and half kilometer from Baldeyakhan, the bus caused accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and fell down into a ditch. In this accident, Mahim Kumar Bhatt died on the spot along with other passengers. Opposite party-UPSRTC/appellant before this Court, has contested by filing a written statement, wherein it has been pleaded that the driver of the Bus No. U.P.06-4140 was an expert driver and there was no negligence on his part. The Bus went deep into a KHAD in attempting to save another vehicle, which was coming up from Haldwani to Nainital being driven very rashly and negligently. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues in the claim petition: 1. “Whether on 27.2.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. Mahim Kumar Bhatt was going to Haldwani from Nainital by Bus No. U.P.06C-4140 of UPSRTC and when the said bus reached near Jyolikot at a distance of two and half kilometer from Baldeyakhan, the bus caused accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and fell down into 3 a ditch, as a consequence of which Mahim Kumar Bhatt sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries? 2. Whether claimants had to suffer economic loss due to death of deceased-Mahim Kumar Bhatt in the said accident? If yes, how much amount and whether claimants are entitled to get that amount of compensation from opposite party? 3. To what compensation are the claimants entitled?” 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.10,10,000/-in favour of claimants, against the opposite party-UASRTC. The Tribunal further directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party to the claimants within a period of two months, failing which, claimants would also be entitled to get an interest @ 7% 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/Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for respondents-claimants and perused the record. As far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the record reveals that at the time of accident the offending bus was going down to Haldwani from Nainital and 4 near the place of accident; the bus was being driven on the hillside, which was the left hand side of the driver. The bus went deep into the Khad towards the right hand side of the driver. It prima facie shows that the driver moved the bus towards the right hand side and because of unforeseen circumstances, the bus fall deep into a Khad. Now, it is on the UASRTC to prove that the driver of bus lost the control of the vehicle to save an unknown vehicle coming up to Nainital from Haldwani. The appellant/UASRTC has utterly failed to prove this fact as narrated in his pleadings. Moreover, if there was any light vehicle coming up, it was duty of the driver to save the life of 31 passengers boarded on the bus. To save the major accident, a minor accident should be allowed to take place. Thus, it was duty of the driver of Bus No. U.P.06-4140, in all the circumstances to save the life of these passengers and the crew members and it cannot be expected that to save an unknown light vehicle, this liberty can be given to the driver to take the life of all the passengers boarded on the bus. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that driver of the offending Bus No. U.P.06-4140 was negligent and it was his and his act only that bus fall deep into a Khad. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and same deserves to be confirmed. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that if the only bread winner of a family had died, then it is natural for suffering mental and economic loss of his family members. This fact has also been proved 5 from the evidence adduced by PW-1 before the court below. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that on the date of accident income of deceased-Mahim Kumar Bhatt was Rs.12,968/- per month i.e. Rs.1,54,800/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.1,54,800/- towards personal expenses of deceased, the income of deceased for compensation has been worked out to Rs.1,03,200/-. Admittedly, the deceased was 50 years of age at the time of accident and keeping in view the age of deceased as well as facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has selected the multiplier of ‘10’, which appears to be justified. After applying the multiplier of ‘10’ the amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs.10,32,000/- (rounded Rs.10,00,000/-). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,10,000/- as compensation to the claimants, which appears to be a just and proper amount of compensation and needs no interference. The interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal also appears to be justified and same shall remain intact. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, A.O. No. 252 of 2005 lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6 As regards A.O. 383 of 2005, this appeal has been filed by appellant/UASRTC against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2005 passed in claim petition no. 125 of 2004, Smt. Usha Rawat and others versus Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, awarding a sum of Rs.15,41,260/- as compensation to the claimants against the appellant/UASRTC, along with interest 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The claimants-Smt. Usha Rawat and others had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 27.2.2004 while the deceased-Bihari Lal Rawat was going to Haldwani from Nainital by Bus No. U.P.06-4140 of UPSRTC, approximately at a distance of two and half kilometer from Baldeyakhan, the bus caused accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and fell down into a ditch. In this accident, Bihari Lal Rawat died on the spot along with other passengers. They have further alleged that deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident and had been earning a sum of Rs.17,452/- per month as salary. Opposite party-UPSRTC/appellant before this Court, has contested by filing a written statement, wherein it has been pleaded that the driver of the Bus No. U.P.06-4140 was an expert driver and there was no negligence on his part. The Bus went deep into a KHAD in attempting to save another vehicle, which was coming up from Haldwani to Nainital being driven very rashly and negligently. It has further pleaded that the claimants/dependants of 7 deceased-Bihari Lal Rawat was awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as financial assistance by UASRTC and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was also awarded to dependents of each deceased by District Magistrate, therefore, this amount of Rs.22,000/- be adjusted in the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues in the claim petition: 1- “Whether on 27.2.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. Bihar Lal Rawat was going to Haldwani from Nainital by Bus No. U.P.06C-4140 of UPSRTC and when the said bus reached near Jyolikot at a distance of two and half kilometer from Baldeyakhan, the bus caused accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and fell down into a ditch, as a consequence of which Bihari Lal Rawat sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries? 2- To what compensation are the claimants entitled?” 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.15,41,260/-in favour of claimants, against the opposite party-UASRTC. The Tribunal further directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party to the claimants within a period of two months, failing which, claimants would also be entitled to get an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 8 Feeling aggrieved by the impugned aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation has preferred A.O. 383 of 2005 before this Court. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Manoj Mohan, learned counsel for respondent-cross objector and perused the record. As far as issue no. 1 regarding factum of accident is concerned, this issue has already been decided by me in previous paragraph of this judgment while deciding A.O. No. 252 of 2005. This appeal is arising out of same accident and common question of fact of law is involved, hence, issue no. 1 regarding factum of accident decided in A.O. No. 383 of 2005 covers this issue. As far as issue no. 2 with regard to amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that deceased- Bihari Lal Rawat was a Government servant and he was 52 years of age at the time of accident. From the documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, it reveals that income of deceased-Bihari Lal Rawat was Rs.17,452/- per month. The deceased also used to file income tax return for a sum of Rs.2,19,460/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that amount for determining the compensation which the deceased used to spend on himself and on his dependents in a year, which comes to Rs.1,70,140. Admittedly, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident and keeping in view the age of deceased as well as facts and 9 circumstances of the case the Tribunal has selected the multiplier of ‘9’, which appears to be justified. After applying the multiplier of ‘9’ the amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs.15,31,260/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,41,260/- as compensation to the claimants, which appears to be a just and proper amount of compensation and needs no interference. The interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal also appears to be justified and same shall remain intact. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. In view of above, A.O. No. 383 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and awards are hereby confirmed. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 383 of 2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP