- (1.) THE Appellant Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) lays challenge to the judgment dated 03.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.16,73,748/ - was granted to Respondent no.1 Himanshu Saxena (adopted son) for the death of his father Deepak Narayan Saxena in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 03.10.2009.
(2.) THERE is twin challenge to the judgment. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the Appellant's driver or in any case, it was composite negligence on the part of Appellant's driver and the truck driver who was coming from the opposite direction. Secondly, it is urged that the compensation awarded is very high and unjustified and unreasonable as the first Respondent was not financially dependent on the deceased Deepak Narayan Saxena.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the first Respondent urges that negligence on the part of Appellant's driver was sufficiently established. It is urged that even if the first Respondent was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/ - per month, he would still be financially dependent on his father with whom he was staying. NEGLIGENCE: With regard to negligence, the Claims Tribunal referred to the testimony of PW4 Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, an eye witness to the incident and Appellant's driver who entered witness box as RW -2. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "PW -4 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma an eyewitness of the accident has tendered in evidence his examination -in -chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A, wherein he has testified that on 03.10.2009 at about 11;15 A.M. he along with his wife Smt. Mamta Sharma and children was going from Delhi to Garhmukteshwar for holy bath in a UP Roadways bus bearing registration No.UP - 25 T 9428. He has fully supported the claim of petitioner in respect of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driven by respondent No.1 and owned by Respondent No.2 resulting into the accident in question. He has testified in respect of injuries of his wife, 20 other passengers and death of two other passengers and that he informed the Police about the accident. On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for Respondent he testified that he boarded the bus from Anand Vihar, ISBT. He denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck. He denied the suggestion that the bus was proceeding on his correct side and the Truck came on the wrong side and had caused the accident. RW -2 Sh. Thakur Das, driver of the offending vehicle has tendered in evidence his examination -in -chief by way of affidavit and has testified that he is not guilty and he has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the accident. He testified that on 03.10.2009 he was driving the UPSRTC bus bearing registration No.UP 25 T 9428 as an employee of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at a normal speed and that the accident was solely caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck. On being cross -examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner he admitted that he was arrested and chargesheeted by the police for rash and negligent driving in the accident in question. He admitted that he did not lodge any complaint to any of the authorities in respect of his alleged false implication. Certified copy of criminal case (comprising copy of chargesheet, FIR, site plan, Postmortem report) placed on record clearly shows that respondent No.2/Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. bus has been arrested, charge -sheeted by the police and is facing trial. All this also prima facie goes to show rashness and negligence of Respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle.";