SUNITA SRIVASTAVA Vs. G.M. U.P.S.R.T.C.
LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-25
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 14,2012

SUNITA SRIVASTAVA Appellant
VERSUS
G.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ADITYA NATH MITTAL,J. - (1.) BOTH these first appeals from order are directed against the judgment and award dated 10.1.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Gorakhpur in M.A.C.T. No.503 of 1996.
(2.) THE Tribunal after recording evidence of both the parties has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000.00 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with interest of 9% per annum. The deceased Satya Prakash Srivastava was travelling in Bus No.U.P.-33-A-1681, owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Raebareli Depot from Gorakhpur to Vikramjeet, District Basti on 13.8.1996. The driver of the Bus was driving the Bus rashly and negligently, due to which at about 08:00 a.m. near Village Kalesar under Police Station Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur-Basti Road, District Gorakhpur, fell down into a ditch filled with water and the deceased and other passengers sustained injuries. The deceased was taken out from the water with the help of driver of a Jeep and was brought to his residence at Gorakhpur, from where he was taken to M.M. Nursing Home by his family members but the doctors refused to entertain the patient being accidental case. The patient was rushed to Medical College, Gorakhpur but because his condition was critical so he was referred to Medical College, Lucknow on 15.8.1996 in the Ambulance of Sahara India but before reaching Mohalla Alhadadpur, the deceased died in between 10:15 to 10:30 p.m. on 15.8.1996.
(3.) THE dependants of the deceased preferred the Motor Accident Claim and examined eight witnesses. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the dependants of the deceased are entitled to get maximum of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are not entitled to get any compensation under Section 163-A because it was not proved that the deceased was travelling in the ill-fated Roadways Bus. The Tribunal also held that the brother of the deceased is an Advocate and the action taken by him is an after thought to complete the chain of events.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.