U.P. ROADWAYS Vs. SANTOSH KHURANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") against the award dated 8.11.1993 passed by MACT seeking to set aside the impugned award.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 8.11.88 one Rattan Lal Khurana was going on the pillion of a two wheeler scooter which was being driven by Rakesh Kumar when they were hit from behind by the offending bus bearing registration no. UHN-974, which was being driven negligently at a very high speed by its driver Sobran Singh, resulting in the death of Rattan Lal Khurana. A petition was filed on 4.10.88 by the legal representatives of the deceased against the driver of the offending bus and UP roadways being the owner claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. The deceased was stated to be 48 yrs old and partner in M/s Kwality Calender Co. Nai Sarak, Delhi having annual income of Rs. 56,000. Vide award dated 8.11.1993 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000.00 along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of the award. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 1,88,000.00 was directed to be released to the widow of the deceased. From the balance amount a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 was to be released to the daughter while Rs. 50,000.00 each to be given to the two sons and the remaining Rs. 20,000.00 was to be given to the mother of the deceased. Further 75% of the compensation awarded to the widow was to be kept in FDR for a period of 10 years, to be released periodically in terms of the award.

(3.) The appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on three grounds. Firstly it has contested the award on the ground of 'no accident' stating that the accident was caused due to negligent and rash driving of the scooter driver as a result of which it collided with the central patri of the road and the pillion rider fell near the rear right side of the bus and no portion of the bus struck the scooter. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that no mechanical inspection report was brought on record by the respondents to prove their case. Further during cross examination the two eye witnesses being the driver of the scooter (PW- 3) and Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW-2) were unable to give details of the offending vehicle with respect to the color or which part of the offending bus had hit the two wheeler scooter. It is urged that both PW-2 and PW-3 were related to the deceased and therefore their testimony could not have been relied upon. As an alternate argument the learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded contributory negligence on behalf of the scooter driver.