U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. BHUVNESH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials on record.

(2.) THIS appeal has been brought against the award dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addi District Judge, Court No. 6 Gautam Budh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 47/01 whereby awarding compensation in the tune of Rs. 50,000 together with interest @ 10%. It is said that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record. Claimant himself was rashly and negligently driving the cycle. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) cannot be held liable for the rash and negligent act of the claimant himself. The learned Tribunal has given undue importance on the evidence including the medical bills furnished by the claimant when those bills were also not true. Even the oral evidence adduced by the parties was not appreciated in correct perspective. It is also said that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000 towards medical bills and Rs. 15,000 towards pains and sufferings. It has further been mentioned that the pains and sufferings ought to have been pleaded by the claimant. In that regard reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Limited v. Lalta Prasad Srivastava .

(3.) IN order to make the disposal of this appeal a brief resume of the facts may be made. It was on 24.10.2000 the claimant Sri Bhuvnesh Dutta was going on cycle and when he reached near to D.P.S. School crossing road within police circle Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad at about 7.00 a.m., Corporation bus No. UP 15E 0113 coming from Meerut, which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently ignoring all traffic rules, collided with the cycle of the claimant. He sustained head and bodily injuries. He was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad where he remained admitted for a petty long time. He sustained fracture in his left leg, which was plastered. He spent huge amount in his treatment. In that background amount of Rs. 11 lakh towards compensation had been claimed. That claim petition was resisted by the Corporation with the contention that the Corporation bus was being driven carefully and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was the cycle rider who himself dashed with the vehicle and so in that background the claimant is not entitled for compensation. The learned Tribunal proceeded to frame the issues whether the bus was being driven rashly and negligently or it was the negligence on the part of the cycle rider/claimant himself. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record came to irresistible conclusion that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. The issues were decided against the Corporation. As regards to the compensation the bills to the tune of Rs. 34,177 were filed by the claimant. Placing reliance on those bills coupled with the submissions made by the claimant the learned Tribunal fixed liability of compensation on the Corporation Rs. 35,000 towards treatment and Rs. 15,000 towards pains and sufferings. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.