U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. MAHBOOB

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') has been brought against the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), Meerut whereby awarding Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by Mr. Mehboob, the petitioner No. 1. It is said that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the materials on record. It is a case of a head-on collision between the Bus No. 15-D/1735, attached with UPSRTC under contract, and another UPSRTC Bus and so the liability between the vehicles ought to have been approportioned in the ratio of 50:50. The learned Trial Court committed error while isolating the liability against the appellant alone. It is also said that the amount of compensation could be given according to the medical bills submitted by the claimant petitioner. In order to facilitate the disposal of this appeal a brief resume of the facts may be made.

(3.) FROM the evidence on record, it is clear that the vehicle No. UP-15D/0167 was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and the responsibility of negligent and rash driving cannot be fastened on the driver of the other vehicle. He also lost control of the vehicle when the driver of Bus No. UP-15 D-8167 came from the other direction. He ought to have seen that this could involve the Bus in an accident with the Bus coming from the opposite direction. He appears to have thrown all caution to the winds and met with an accident, there can be no justification for blaming the driver of the vehicle, who took care to swerve the vehicle, as would be evident from the site plan prepared in the course of investigation by the police. The driver of the Bus No. UP-15D-0167 was wholly responsible for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Bus No. UP-15D/1735. The entire compensation has, therefore, to be borne out by the owner of the Bus No. UP-15D/1067, as was held by the learned Tribunal. However, from the side of appellant, reliance has also been placed on the principles of law enunciated in the case of Smt. Indrani Raja Durai and Ors. v. Madras Motors & General Insurance Co. and Ors. 1 (1996) ACC 335 (SC) : 1996 (2) TAC 77 SC wherein the responsibility for making the payment of compensation was shared between the two vehicles in which the motorcycle of the victim was kicked. The facts of this case are altogether different.