Skip to content


U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bimla Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC465
AppellantU.P. State Road Transport Corporation
RespondentBimla Devi and ors.
Cases ReferredKrishna Kumari Gupta v. Gur Buvnesh Singh
Excerpt:
- - it is not maintained for the appellant that the visibility was poor so far as the driver is concerned or that this contributed in any measure to the accident......therefore, to see broadly how things happened at the moment. there is no dispute that prithvi pal singh deceased was moving towards his left. it is contended that the bus was coming from the opposite direction. there is no indication as to what might have possibly led the bus to dash against him. it may not be accepted that the deceased will have for no reason swung to the wrong side and dashed himself against the bus. the situation in which the bus in question dashed the deceased and the absence of cogenter satisfactory evidence from the side of the appellant on the question as to here the accident occurred in spite of due care and diligence exercised by the driver to avert the accidept, lead to the conclusion that this was in all probability due to rash and negligent driving on the.....
Judgment:

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The accident took place on 6th of December, 1975 around 6.00 p m. The deceased Prithvi Pal Singh, aged about 30 years, was a teacher in village Dehni. As usual he was on way back to his residence in village Alalpur on a cycle. Bus No. U.S.A. 8222 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, driven by D.W. 1 Bhagwan Singh, dashed against Prithvi Pal Singh whereby he was thrown on the eastern patri of the road and sustained injuries, due to which he succumbed shortly afterwards. Motor Accident claims Petition, giving rise to this appeal, was filed thereafter Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act containing the allegations that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by Bhagwan Singh, the driver of the bus in ques ion. In defence it was refuted that the driver had been negligent. A plea was taken that Prithvi Pal Singh, who was coming on a cycle from the opposite direction, took a surpoise turn to cross the road which led the bus to strike against him. The Tribunal has, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, reached the finding that the accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving by DW Bhagwan Singh of the bus in question and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The deoeased was found to be contributing a sum of Rs. 1652.40 annually towards the benefit of the family. Adopting a multiplier of 20 and after making deduction at the rate of 25% in the sum of Rs. 33,048/-, a sum of Rs. 24,786/-was awarded to the claimsants by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this appeal.

2. learned Counsel for the appellant urged in the first place that the evidence placed on record does not establish rash and negligent driving on the part of DW Bhagwan Singh. It was argued in this connection that the accident having taken place around 6.30 p.m. on December 6, 1975, the visibility will have been over and hence neither PW Vijay Singh nor PW Shoe Kumar Singh would be in a position to see as to how the accident occurred. PW Vijay Singh was a passenger in the bus sitting just behind the driver. He has stated that the bus was being driven through out with a fast speed and that as a result whereof it was swerving from one direction to another. It has also been stated that the passengers of the bus asked the driver to drive slowly a number of times, but this was of no avail. The amount of light available to this witness will have, in all probability, been the same as to the driver who was driving the bus. It is not maintained for the appellant that the visibility was poor so far as the driver is concerned or that this contributed in any measure to the accident. This being so it, cannot be accepted that PW Vijay Singh will not have been in a position to see as to how the accident occurred or even notice the speed at which the bus was being driven PW Sheo Kumar Singh is a resident of village Alalpur. He was on foot towards his village on the date of occurrence. He too was in a position, therefore, to see broadly how things happened at the moment. There is no dispute that Prithvi Pal Singh deceased was moving towards his left. It is contended that the bus was coming from the opposite direction. There is no indication as to what might have possibly led the bus to dash against him. It may not be accepted that the deceased will have for no reason swung to the wrong side and dashed himself against the bus. The situation in which the bus in question dashed the deceased and the absence of cogenter satisfactory evidence from the side of the appellant on the question as to here the accident occurred in spite of due care and diligence exercised by the driver to avert the accidept, lead to the conclusion that this was in all probability due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver.

3. In regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier adopted in such a case in normally 16 and not 20 as has been done by the Tribunal in the instant case. The deceased was born on 7th of January, 1946 and was aged about 29 or 30 years at the relevant time. Reference has been made to U.P. Road Transport Corporation v. Raja Ram Shukla AIR ALJ 955 besides other cases, including a decision of this Court reported in Krishna Kumari Gupta v. Gur Buvnesh Singh : AIR1985All85 in support of the contention that where the age of the deceased is within this range, the multiplier adopted normally is 15-16. In the circumstances there may not be said to exist cogent reason for applying 20 as multiplier instead of 16 only. This, however, will not make such difference because even if the multiplier of 16 were to be adopted, the sum awardable to the respondent-claimsants would be Rs. 26,480/- only, the reason being that in that event the deduction on account of lump sum payment will not be called for. This means, in other words, that the amount awarded under the appeal is not to be reduced, even if the multiplier of 16 instead of 20 is adopted for the purpose of the case.

4. Consideration behind had to the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Costs on parties.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //