NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. USMAN AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer of bus U. P. 81W/9888 has challenged the award dated 12.4.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge Court No. 2. Ghaziabad in M.A.C. Case No. 94 of 2009, whereby compensation of Rs. 4,41,500 have been awarded to the respondents No. 1 to 4 on account of death of 29-years' old Smt. Parveen in the motor accident. It was alleged by the claimants that on 11.1.2009 Smt. Parveen alongwith her husband was going to her village from Hapur on scooter No. MP 17H/2970 and when they reached in front of Mangal Bhawan on Meerut Road, Hapur the undertaking bus No. U. P. 81W/9888 of respondent No. 3 hit the scooter from behind, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. She sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Khan Nursing Home, Hapur where she was declared dead. At the time of accident the offending bus was being plied under respondent No. 3 and it was insured with the appellant. The accident was reported to the police. The claimants being the husband and children of the deceased preferred claim for an award of Rs. 17.25 lacs. The opposite parties contested the claim. The owner of the bus stated that on the date of accident the bus was under control of respondent No. 3 through an agreement between the parties and it was insured with the appellant. The appellant claimed that on the date of accident the bus in question was under control of U.P.S.R.T.C., so they are not liable to indemnify the award. The claimants examined Usman P.W. 1 and filed several papers. The opposite party No. 3 examined Sahastra Pal Singh D.W. 1 and had filed the copy of agreements. The learned Tribunal after hearing parties' counsel held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and awarded compensation as stated above. It was further observed that the claimants were ready to compromise the case in Lok Adalat for Rs. 4,25,000 but due to inaction and non-cooperation by the officers of the appellant, the compromise could not be materialized, so the learned Tribunal directed that the amount of compensation together with interest over and above Rs. 4,25,000 may be realized by the appellant from the present Divisional Manager of the appellant. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the age of deceased has been incorrectly taken; that amount of compensation is highly excessive and without any basis; that at the time of accident the bus in question was under control of U.P.S.R.T.C. and as the appellant was not a party to the agreement between the owner of the bus and U.P.S.R.T.C. so the appellant is not liable to indemnify the award and that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing personal responsibility of the officer of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation over and above Rs. 4.25 lacs, as the case could not be decided in Lok Adalat.