U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. MOHAMMAD FIROZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been brought against the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby awarding compensation of Rs. 60,000 towards the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident of the Roadways Bus No. UP 65-5052 with a truck, it is said that the learned Tribunal had not properly appreciated the evidence and materials on record. There was insufficient evidence to show that the claimant was virtually travelling in that bus. It is for the claimant to prove that whatever injuries he sustained they were virtually on account of the accident of the bus in which he was travelling. It is said that non-production of ticket would show the claimant to be not the bona fide passenger. Whatever evidence was taken into consideration by the Tribunal for settling the compensation amount was insufficient. It is also said that a person would not be entitled to compensation merely on the ground that an accident had taken place. He has to show his entitlement for compensation. In order to appreciate the legal points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, a brief resume of the facts may be made.

(2.) CLAIM petition has been brought by the respondent with the allegations that on 27.4.1992 he was travelling in a Roadways bus No. UP 65-5052. He boarded in that bus for coming to Allahabad. It was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. It met with an accident with a truck and the driver of the bus lost his life. Claimant sustained fracture of left leg. Three other passengers namely Maqsom, Indra Lal and Kailash also sustained serious injuries. They were immediately shifted to Fatehpur District Hospital from where the claimant was shifted to Beli Hospital, Allahabad when he was given medical treatment and he got his leg plastered. Moreover, it took about two months time for recovery and removal of plaster. In support of his claim the respondent has also filed medical prescription and the certificates showing serious injuries sustained by the claimant respondent but the same was dismissed. Other evidence was also adduced by him. On the basis of that evidence, Tribunal has worked out compensation of Rs. 60,000 towards medical expenses, pain, suffering and loss of income. This compensation amount was determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimant. To the contrary nothing could be pointed out from the side of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) to interfere in the finding so recorded by the Trial Court. It is, however, said that whatever calculation has been made it is to the higher side. Such compensation was not admissible and cannot be given in the form of benefit to the claimant. Whatever exact amount he has invested in his treatment that may be admissible to him. It may be mentioned that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. As has also been mentioned above, on the basis materials and evidence on record adduced, such compensation was ascertained by the Tribunal. No interference in that regard is needed. In this regard observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. may be extracted hereinunder: ...the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture.... The determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables. In the assessment of the imponderables, there is likely to be a margin of error....

(3.) THE amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in the Court be remitted to the Tribunal which may be withdrawn by the claimant respondent. Balance amount be also deposited within two months in the Tribunal so as to satisfy the awarded amount.