U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri V.S. Kulshrestha, the then IV Addl. District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh in Claim Petition No. 45 of 1978, Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. has given rise to the two appeals i.e. Appeal No. 269 of 1981 and Appeal No. 379 of 1981.

(2.) THE learned Counsels for the parties have been heard and record is perused.

(3.) THE aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Appeal preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. is being pressed to show that no compensation should have been granted as the driver of bus was not negligent and in fact the driver of truck in question had been negligent while the appeal preferred by the claimants is to the effect that the compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below is not proper and in fact it should have been granted in toto to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as claimed. The finding of facts is being given by the Tribunal below to the effect that driver of bus in question had been negligent and not driver of the truck. This finding of facts is being arrived at just on the appreciation of the evidence on record. Nothing is being stated to show cogent reason for which it may be said to be vitiated. The learned Counsel for UPSRTC submitted that photos filed on behalf of it had not been relied upon by the Tribunal below on the ground that negatives had not been proved on the record. I feel nothing wrong in it. The submission does not appear to have been based on any law. The law is otherwise which is clear that unless negatives of photos are filed and proved on record, the photo only cannot be admitted in evidence and relied upon. It may be noted that driver of the bus in question died on the spot.