Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Parwati and Others

J.R. Midha

The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 9,68,704/- has been awarded to the respondents in MAC. APP. No. 504/2004 and Rs. 34,180/- has been awarded in MAC. APP. No. 522/2004.

The accident dated 21st July, 2002 resulted in the death of Mahender Pal, injuries to his wife, Parwati and his son, Jeetender who were travelling in Maruti Car bearing No. DL-6C-5234 driven by the deceased Mahender Pal. Three separate claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal, one in respect of the death of Mahender Pal, second in respect of the injuries suffered by Parwati and third in respect of the injuries suffered by Jeetender. By a common award dated 15th July, 2004, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,68,704/- to the legal representatives of the deceased Mahender Pal, Rs. 34,180/- to Parwati and Rs. 20,674/- to Jeetender.

The appellants filed three appeals against the common award passed by the Claims Tribunal. MAC.APP.No. 507/2004 titled Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Jeetender was dismissed by this Court holding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Van driven by the deceased, Mahender Pal. The findings of this Court in the order dated 24th November, 2004 are reproduced hereunder:-

MAC.APP.No. 507/2004 & C.M.Appl.14802/2004

This appeal is directed against order dated 15.07.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 81/2003 passing an award in favour of the respondent herein.

Heard counsel for the appellant. I have got through the judgment under challenge. From a perusal of Ex.PW-1/27, prepared by the Investigating Officer at the scene of the accident, it reflects that the offending bus was on the right side on the road and that the Maruti van was on the extreme left of the road which is the spot of the accident. From this it can be inferred that the offending bus, in the process of overtaking a truck, rammed into the Maruti Van which was travelling in its own lane. From this it can also be deduced that the overtaking was being done at a high speed when the driver of the bus seems to have lost control of the vehicle. In these facts, there is no question of contributory negligence. The judgment under challenge is an elaborate judgment dealing with all points in question and there is nothing shown to me that should warrant a different opinion.

In that view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere. The appeal and the applications are dismissed

MAC.APP.No. 522/2004

On 1st December, 2004, learned counsel for the appellant made a statement that she does not press the question of contributory negligence and would restrict the challenge only to quantum of compensation which is recorded in the order dated 1st December, 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks reduction of the amount awarded to the claimant, Parwati.

The claimant suffered head injuries in the accident. She was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Bulandshahr where she was discharged on the same day. Thereafter, she took treatment from GTB Hospital where the CAT Scan of the brain was done. She continued her treatment at Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital. She used to visit the hospital four times in a month for which she claimed Rs. 150/- towards conveyance charges on each visit. She also claimed Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- per day on special diet. The claimant was running general store from the residence in the name of Brij General Store earning Rs. 5,800/- per month. The claimant was an Income Tax payee. The Income Tax Return for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 were proved as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/2A. The prescription cards and medical bills were proved as Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/21 to Ex.PW1/23. The prescription fee and the medical bills of Rs. 871/- were proved by the claimants.

The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 871/- towards medical bills/treatment, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and conveyance and Rs. 18,309/- towards loss of income. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any reduction. The Claims Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation for loss of amenities of life which is a permissible head in injury cases. However, since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents who have also not filed any cross-objections, the enhancement is not warranted.

MAC.APP.No. 504/2004

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The deceased was contributory negligent to the extent of at least 50% and, therefore, the compensation is liable to be reduced to that extent.

(ii) The deceased is not entitled to future prospects of 50% awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

With respect to the issue of contributory negligence, this Court has already given a finding in MAC.APP.No. 507/2004 that there was no contributory negligence of the driver of Maruti Van. Following the order dated 24th November, 2004 passed by this Court in MAC.APP.No. 507/2004, the plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellant is rejected.

With respect to the plea of future prospects, it is noted that the deceased was running shop of electrical goods earning Rs. 4,837/- per month. The Income Tax Return for the year 2001-02 was proved as Ex.PW1/1. The deceased was 38 years old and was survived by his widow, three sons and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the Supreme Court has held that in exceptional cases, the future prospects can be taken into consideration even in respect of self-employed persons. The deceased was at the threshold of his career and, therefore, there is no infirmity in treating this case as an exceptional case in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is also noted that the deceased was survived by six legal representatives and, therefore, the appropriate deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased should have been 1/4th whereas the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have also not filed the cross-objections, the enhancement on account of the reduction of personal expenses of the deceased is not warranted.

For all the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs.