- (1.) This First Appeal From Order has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment dated 31st January 2010 and the Decree dated. 11th February 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Room No. 11, Bareilly, in M.A.C.P. No. 600 of 2008, Raham Daad Khan and Anr. v. U.P.S.R.T.C, Bareilly, though its Managing Director/Local Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadways Station, Bareilly, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,500/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the petition till the date of payment. Each of the claimants-appellants was given 50% of the compensation. It was further directed by the Tribunal that out of the amount payable to each of the claimants Rs. 60,000/- shall be invested in Fixed Deposit scheme of a Nationalised Bank for three years.
(2.) The Claimants raised their claim through the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 600 of 2008 on account of the death of their son Babloo. The death of Babloo occurred in the accident, which took place on 23rd, July. 2008 near Lotus College at Faridpur- Bareilly Road. At that time he was travelling in a Tempo bearing number UP 78 AT 5602. An U.P. State Roadways Bus bearing number UGL 487 came from behind the Tempo in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident due to which Babloo received injuries and later on died. He was 20 years of age when the accident took place. He was a mason and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claim petition of the claimants was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(3.) The U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation filed its written statement denying almost all the allegations of the claim petition. It was alleged in the written statement that the Claim petition was not filed as per the law and was also not properly signed and verified. The accident was also denied by the U.P.S.R.T.C With the above mentioned Bus. It was also said in the written statement that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner of the Tempo and the Insurance Company of it were not made parties in the claim petition.;