Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Baldev

M.L. Mehta, J.—By way of present appeal, the appellant has assailed an award dated 25.10.2005 passed by learned Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs. 1,18,400/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant/ respondent Baldev in Claim Petition No.17/04 filed for compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 10.11.2003 when he was going on his bicycle and was struck by a bus bearing registration number UP-15Q-9967 being driven by Rajinder Kumar, driver of the offending bus.

Award of compensation of Rs. 1,18,400/- was made up of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by the claimant; Rs. 6,000/- on account of the expenses incurred by the claimant on treatment, Rs. 10,000/- on account of conveyance and special diet; Rs. 8400/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and agony and loss of future enjoyment of life.

The impugned award is assailed mainly on the ground that the injured Baldev was under the influence of liquor and that the accident was caused due to his negligence and secondly that the compensation awarded is excessive.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

The contention that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the claimant on account of his being under the influence of alcohol is misplaced. The learned Tribunal had dealt with this submission of the learned counsel by recording that mere presence of smell of alcohol in the breath of a person does not make him under the influence of liquor. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal. The fact that the injured had consumed some alcohol and was so smelling would, per se, not bring him in the category of negligent to contribute to the cause of accident. There is nothing on record to suggest that he was under the influence of liquor. It is also noted that the plea of the appellant/insurance company before the Tribunal was that it was the half body truck which was going in front of the bus which hit the cyclist and not the bus. This plea was turned down by the Tribunal as an afterthought. It is pertinent to note that no such plea had been taken by the appellant before this Court and as noted above, no other plea with regard to the accident was taken except that it was due to contributory negligence of the claimant on account of his smelling alcohol. The appellant seems not to have acted fairly in presenting this appeal.

With regard to the amount of compensation, it is noted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,18,400/- made up on different heads. Though the injured was unable to obtain disability certificate, but, from the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar, it would be seen that the claimant had received multiple head injuries with left front temporal hemorrhagic contusions with SAH and SDH with fracture clavicle. The accident occurred on 10.11.2003, but, he continued to follow treatment in OPD till 08.07.2005 and he had throughout been complaining headache, giddiness and seizures. Dr. Rakesh Kumar also noted that due to these injuries, the claimant may not recover fully and may suffer permanent disability.

Keeping in view the nature of injuries, I do not see any infirmity in the Tribunal awarding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,18,400/- to the claimant under different heads and the compensation as awarded under different heads cannot be said to be excessive.

The appeal has no merit. The same is hereby dismissed.