Krishna Murari, Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) has been filed by the appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short U.P.S.R.T.C.) challenging the judgment and award dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Mainpuri awarding a sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- along with 7% simple interest as compensation for death of one Raj Kishor in a motor accident.
(2.) Facts as set out in the pleadings of the parties are that on 16.6.2013 at about 12.40 p.m. when Raj Kishor was standing on the southern side of G.T. Road Bebar Kanpur Marg in front of shop of Jhabbulal, the offending bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. belonging to Banda Depot having registration no. U.P.-95B-2015 hit him which resulted into grievous injuries. The victim was firstly taken to primary health centre, Bebar from where he was referred to district hospital Mainpuri and on account of serious condition, he was referred to P.G.I., Saifai where he underwent treatment. However, on account of further seriousness in his condition, he was referred to Agra on 17.6.2013. He remained admitted at Rainbow Hospital from 17.06.2013 to 31.6.2013 where his right leg was amputated below knee. He was discharged from the hospital and returned to his home. But when his condition started deteriorating he was again admitted to Mainpuri Hospital which referred the patient to Agra Medical College. While being taken to Agra on 13.11.2013, he died. The postmortem was conducted on 14.11.2013. On these allegations, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 69 Lac along with 12% interest. The appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. contested the proceedings by filing written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it was admitted that the offending bus belong to Banda Depot, and was plying on Agra - Banda route. It was also stated that Ramesh Kumar Kushwaha was the driver of the offending bus and Rajesh Shukla was the conductor and the accident was not caused due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle and was a result of the negligence of the deceased who was driving a motor cycle. The driver of the offending bus (respondent no. 10) also filed a written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. He, however, admitted in the additional pleas that at the time of the accident he was driving the bus but denied his negligence in accident. He also reiterated the stand taken by the U.P.S.R.T.C. that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased.
(3.) The Tribunal after analysing the evidence returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus.;