Vijay Kumar Rastogi vs Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport ...

2. The   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (for   short,   “the Tribunal”)   vide   order   dated   4th  April,   2009,   awarded compensation   to   the   appellant   and   his   father­in­law   to   the tune of Rs.5,59,584/­ and Rs.4,53,131/­, respectively, against which four appeals were filed before the High Court, one each by the appellant and his father­in­law and two cross appeals by   the   respondent,   all   of   which   were   disposed   of   by   the impugned   judgment.   The   appellant   alone   has   assailed   the impugned   judgment   and   prays   for   grant   of   enhanced compensation amount.

3. As can be gleaned from the claim petition, the appellant and   his   father­in­law   suffered   serious   injuries   on   26 th January, 2005, when their car was hit by bus no. UP­25­G­ 9132,   owned   by   the   respondent   and   being   rashly   and negligently driven by one Alam Beg. The extent of the injuries caused to the appellant included haemorrhage, multiple cuts, bruises   and   fractures   all   over   the   body   and   post   traumatic optic   neuropathy.   The   appellant   was   treated   at   several hospitals and operated upon but suffered disability of 25%. He 3 then   filed   a   claim   petition   in   the   Tribunal,   Karkardooma, Delhi, against the driver of bus no. UP­25­G­9132, Alam Beg, and the respondent on 27th January, 2006.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, vide order dated 4th April, 2009, inter   alia   held   that   bus   No.   UP­25­G­9132   was   rashly   and negligently   driven   by   the  driver,   Alam  Beg,   and  accordingly, awarded   the   appellant   with   compensation   of   Rs.5,59,584/­ along with interest at 7% p.a. under the following heads:

7. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s award, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, alleging that while passing the award, the Tribunal had erroneously calculated his income as Rs. 44,511/­ per annum, disregarding his income from other sources   and   also   reducing   the  actual   income   earned   by  the appellant by following the standard deduction method. In the impugned judgment, the High Court while recording that the appellant’s   taxable   income   was   Rs.77,480/­   less   tax   paid  of Rs.4496/­,   and   while   accepting   that   the   accident   had   been caused by the rash driving of the bus driver, Alam Beg and that the appellant had in no way contributed to the causing of 7 the   accident,   only   enhanced   the   rate   of   interest   on   the compensation awarded from 7% to 9% as it felt that the rate of interest awarded was on the lower side but it did not enhance the compensation itself, on the ground that no case had been made   out   for   enhancement.   The   appellant   challenged   the aforesaid judgment by way of a review petition, which was also dismissed.

15. A   priori,   the   appellant   would   succeed   in   getting additional amount of  Rs.2,85,966/­  (Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand  nine hundred and sixty six only) as enhanced compensation   towards   ‘loss   of   income’   and     ‘loss   of   future income’, along  with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of realization.   14

16. The   appeals   are   allowed   to   that   limited   extent   in   the above terms with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

February 09, 2018.