UTTRAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JYOTI SARDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal, the appellant-the owner of bus bearing registration no.UK-07-PA-1358, in short, 'the offending vehicle', seeks to assail the judgment-Award dated 29.07.2017 passed by MACT (N/W), whereunder, the offending vehicle was held to be driven rashly and negligently resulting into the death of Mohan Kumar Sardana, in short 'the deceased'. The compensation came to be awarded to the respondent nos.1 to 5, who are his widow, children and the parents. The appellant assails the impugned judgment-Award, on two counts. Firstly, on the ground that the evidence and the other material on record before the Tribunal, was not sufficient to hold that the offending vehicle for the occurrence of the accident. The other ground of challenge is as regards the quantum of compensation.

(2.) As regards the plea that there was no sufficient material on record to attribute occurrence of the accident to the offending vehicle, ld. counsel for the appellant is at pains to point out the contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition of PW-1, who has deposed for being an eyewitness and narrated the incident, as a consequence whereof, her husband sustained injuries and died. She has categorically deposed for being in the company of the deceased, when the accident occurred. When her such deposition has gone unshaken and unrebutted, the mere delay in lodging of the FIR, as is sought to be contended by the ld. counsel for the appellant, cannot be taken to be a circumstance, to cast a shadow of doubt on her deposition. More so, when the police on the investigations carried out on FIR, has also filed the charge-sheet, and, as per the investigations, found enough material to connect the offending vehicle and the driver thereof. For the foregoing reasons, no error can be found in the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal for the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased having died on account of the injuries sustained, thereby. The contention raised to the contrary is therefore, rejected.

(3.) As regards the challenge to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under different heads, as follows: