SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rae Bareli in Claim Petition No. 115 of 1997.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 18th March, 1997 at about 10.30 A.M., the deceased Sri Ganga Ram was going on his cycle for purchasing the bricks. When he reached the Paper Mill near Qasba Harchandpur, a bus no. U.P.-78, N-0217 was coming from Rae Bareli side and dashed the cycle of Ganga Ram, who fell down and immediately was taken to the hospital where he was declared 'dead'. As per post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was assessed as 35 years. He was survived by his wife and three minor children. The crowd noted down the number of the bus and an FIR was lodged against the bus which was operated under the control of UPSRTC. The name of the bus driver was Kashi Nath Singh who was an experienced driver and was holding the valid license. The heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the age of the deceased as well as the claimants-respondents and other circumstances, awarded the compensation by observing that the accident took place by the bus. The Tribunal also observed that the bus was being operated under the control and instructions of the UPSRTC, so the UPSRTC is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 76,500. In addition, Rs. 5,000 was awarded for solatium. Thus, the total compensation was awarded Rs. 83,500. Not being satisfied, the UPSRTC has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri D.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that no accident took place by the bus of the Corporation, as reported by the Conductor of the bus Sri Hublal but the Tribunal has not considered the said statement. He further submits that the bus in question was operating under an agreement which entered into between the Corporation and the bus owner. As per the agreement, the responsibility lies on the bus owner and not on the Corporation. He also submits that the bus was insured, so the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned award may kindly be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite-parties has justified the impugned order.;