N.N. Mithal, J.
1. On 3-2-1972, an accident occurred near village Chaudharpur, 16 Kms. away from Moradabad on the Moradabad-Garhmuk-teshwar Road involving U.P. Road Transport Corporation (U P.S.R.T.C. hereafter) Bus No. USE 3108. Apart from others, the five claimants were also injured who filed petitions Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Moradabad. Those claim petitions have given rise to the present FA F.Os. The details of the respective cases and the F.A.F.Os. arising from each of them are given in the table below:
Claim Case F.A.FO. Claimant Claimed Awarded
1. 3 of 1972 458/78 R.P. Rastogi 22,000/- Nil
2. 4 of 1972 319/78 Alok 27,300/- 9,300/-
3. 5 of 1972 318/78 Shekhar 25,500/- 2,000/-
4. 6 of 1972 320/78 Prashant 26,800/- 2,000/-
X-appeal 459 of 1978.
5. 7 of 1972 321/78 Meenakshi 29,000/- 6,000/-
2. It will be noticed that while the Claim Petition moved by R.P. Rastogi was rejected, all others were partially allowed giving rise to F.A.F.Os. filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Cross-objections and in one case a cross appeal have been filed while the Claim Petition filed by R.P. Rastogi which has been rejected in toto, he has filed F.A.F.O. No. 458 of 1978. The relevant facts may be stated as under:
The claimants are residents of Siyana in District Bulandshahr and had come to Moradabad in connection with a marriage there. After the marriage when the claimants were returning by the aforesaid Bus from Moradabad on 3-5-1972, it got late and instead of starting at 6.30 A.M., its scheduled time, it left Moradabad at about 7-15 A.M. Since the bus was late, the driver was in a hurry to make up for the lost time and for that reason, the driver Gajram was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently. It was raining intermittently and the road was wet with the result it had become slipperly. There was overnight rain also. Despite all these facts, the driver was driving the bus very fast and in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached village Chaudharpur about 16 Kms. away from Moradabad, the bus skidded and after travelling for nearly 200 meters, it turned to the right, crossed the road and the right side patri and hit a Sheesham tree on the right side of the road with such impact that the trunk of the tree ripped into the body of the bus upto one-third of its length. The claimants who were seated just behind the driver's seat were all badly injured and were immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital at Moradabad where they were given initial treatment. Since the injuries received were of a serious nature, they were later treated in the Hospitals in Delhi. The claimants but forward their claims as set out above in the table and each of them has been awarded compensation as is also noted in the said table.
3. All the Claim Petitions were contested on behalf of the U.P.S.R.T.C. on the ground that the bus was not being driven either rashly or in a negligent manner; the road and the side Patri was muddy and, therefore, for reasons beyond the control of the driver, the bus had skidded before hitting the tree, the injuries received by the claimants were only minor in nature and the claims have been exaggerated and that the bus had not left the Bus Station late so as require speeding bus to make up for the delay. A few other technical objections were also raised but the learned Counsel for the U.P.S.R.T C. has very rightly confined his arguments on the question of negligence and quantum of damages.
4. At the very outset, it may by stated that the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. has filed Ext 65 which is a report given by one K..D. Arora, (DW 3) who was Assistant General Manager of the Corporation at Moradabad at the relevant time. According to his report dated February 4, 1972, the scheduled time for the bus to leave Moradabad was 6-30 A.M. and the accident had taken place 16 kms. out of Moradabad. In his report, he has mentioned that the accident took place at about 7-20 in the morning and it was a clouded day with slight drizzle which had caused the road patris to be muddy. He has reported that on account of the slippery nature of the road, the bus skidded towards the left and when the driver tried to turn it to the right, he lost control and consequently the bus struck against the Sheesham tree. According to him, out of 25 passengers in the bus, 14 or 15 received minor injuries while seven others received serious injuries who were admitted to the Civil Hospital. He also mentioned that the tocograph fixed in the bus was not functioning. He also found that the right front portion of the body of the bus upto half the length of the bus had been damaged and the seats had been uprooted. In the end he has mentioned that a detailed report on the relevant forms will be submitted to the Regional Manager, Bareilly. A copy of this report has also been endorsed amongst others to the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, with a request to inform about the police report. Another copy was endorsed to the Civil Surgeon, Moradabad to send the injury report of the injured passengers to his office.
5. None of these documents, however, have been filed on the record and there is no evidence on the record as to whether the same had at all been received in the office or not.
6. From this report, it will be obvious that the defence that the bus had not left Moradabad late was incorrect for the simple reason that admittedly the accident took place at about 7.20 A.M. and if the bus had really left at 6.30 or near about that time, it was not possible for the bus to have taken 50 minutes to cover a distance of 16 Kms. only. According to the claimants the accident had taken place at about 7-45 and this allegation has not been denied any where in the written statement of the appellant. According to this, the bus should have taken at least 75 minutes to cover a distance of 16 Kms. which again is not possible. It would, therefore, be safe to presume that the bus did start late from Moradabad and that may be one of the reasons why the bus was being driven at a fast speed. On this question there is evidence of PW 5 Tej Bahadur who was one of the injured passengers, of PW 8 Km. Meenakshi and PW 9 R.P. Rastogi, two of the injured claimants. From the side of the U.P.S.R.T.C., DW 1 Mohd. Umar has been examined who is Pradhan of a village and he has claimed that he was standing at a road side stall near the site of the accident. In his cross-examination he has not been able to sustain the story which he gave out in the examination in-chief. DW 2 Vijay Singh claims to be one of the passengers in the bus in question. He too was not able to prove that he was actually travelling in the bus. He, however, admitted that the bus at that time was going at the speed of 30 to 35 M P.H , which will be equivalent to 50 Kms. per hour. He sprang a surprise by saying that a cow suddenly appeared on the road and in order to avoid hitting it, the driver applied the brakes and this caused the bus to skid before it struck against the tree. This in fact was not the case taken by the Corporation. The falsity of his statement is also established from the fact that according to him the road at the site of the accident was running north-south and the tree with which the bus struck, according to him, was situated to the west of the road. If that be true, the tree should be situated on the left side of the road and not to the right. He, however, corrected himself later on by saying that the tree with which bus struck was on the right side of the road. He also admitted that the tree got embedded and entangled into the body of the bus after the impact. He also stated that at the relevant time the speed of the bus was 35 MPH. The statement of this witness, therefore, is not worth reliance.
7. On the other hand, PW 5, PW 8 and PW 9 have consistently supported the story set up by them in the claim petition and is also corroborated from the report of DW 3. In material aspects, the case of the claimants is also supported by the driver and the conductor except on the question of the speed of the bus and that it was being driven in a negligent manner. The driver also gave out for the first time that a cow had appeared on the road suddenly and for that reason brakes had to be applied. When confronted with his written statement which was conspicuous by the absence of this allegation, he was not able to explain the omission. He only said that he had told the counsel about it but it might have been left out while typing. The driver has gone to the extent of contradicting even the statements of DW 3 and DW 2 who had stated that the tree had ripped into the body of the bus. According to him the bus had merely touched the trunk of the tree and the seats of the bus had not been uprooted. The conductor DW 5 has admitted that it was dangerous to drive the bus at a speed of more than 25 Kms. per hour on account of the condition of the road due to rain. He also corroborated the statement of the driver by saying that the bus had merely touched the tree and had not struck it with any amount of impact. The evidence of DWs has, therefore, been very rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
8. On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record, there is no room for doubt in holding that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and that the claimants would be entitled to compensation for any injury received by them as a consequence thereof.
9. Coming now to the nature of injuries caused to each of the claimant, it is relevant to refer to the medical evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. P.W. 1 Dr. N.R. Bhatia was the Radiologist in the District Hospital Moradabad on 3-2-1972. When the claimants were admitted in the Hospital, Prashant, Shekhar, Meenakshi and Alok were X-rayed. Their X-ray report and X-ray plates have been filed on the record. According to him, mandible bone of Prashant had been fractured while Alok suffered fracture of right Tibia and fabula and also lost four upper teeth. Meenakshi had fracture in right tibia and fabula in the lower portion while Shekhar did not suffer any fracture in the skull.
10. P.W. 2 Dr. S.K. Mukherji was a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Moradabad on the relevant date. He had put plaster on the fractured leg of Alok. He has also brought and proved the relevant entries in the Hospital Register regarding treatment given to Alok. He also brought and proved the relevant entries in the register and bed head ticket regarding treatment given to Meenakshi. P.W. 3 Dr. PK. Jain who was Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Moradabad had examined the injured persons between 8-15 A.M. to 8.35 A.M. on 3-2-1972. He noted down the various injuries on the person of the injured claimants including the injuries received by Tej Bahadur who has appeared as P.W. 5. He also filed the injury reports of all the injured persons. From this evidence, it is fully established that the claimants Shekhar, Prashant, Alok and Meenakshi all had received injuries on their person in the accident and the defence that the injuries were of a minor nature is not correct. In fact the injuries received were of a grave nature.
11. Apart from the fact that the claimants had received injuries, it is now necessary to examine as to what was the nature of the treatment given to the claimants. The statements of Meenakshi P.W. 8 and R.P. Rastogi P.W. 9 give details of the treatment given to the injured. Apart from this, there is additional medical evidence also. Dr. S. Sarin is Ort hopaedic Surgeon in Hindu Rao Hospital at Delhi. P.W. 6 Anand Lal Chau-dhary being the X-ray Technician in that Hospital proved the X-ray plates and report. These two witnesses have stated about the nature of treatment and injury of Meenakshi. P.W. 10 Dr. Indrajeet Singh was Incharge Dental Surgeon of Safdarjung Hospital and had treated Brashan while P.W. 11 Dr. Tripthi Dutta is Paediatric Surgeon in the same Hospital and had treated Shekhar. According to P.W. 10 Prashant was hospitalised on 4-3-1972 in the after-noon with a fracture of mandible right-side and left jaw bone. He also had an injury on the right cheek. The fracture was brought into position by putting a wiring splint and his treatment was completed only on 10-3-1972. He was discharged on 13-2-1972 and wire splint was to be removed after four weeks. His mouth was actually opened after five weeks and during this period he was kept on liquid diet. According to the doctor, the result of the treatment will have to be watched for another 13 to 14 years until new teeth grow when only it would be possible to diagnose whether the jaw had taken proper shape. According to him, it is quite possible that after such an injury, the face may become twisted as years passed. The doctor also proved the documents pertaining to the treatment. Although some cross-examination has been directed but nothing of any importance has been extracted which may go to discredit his testimony.
12. Similarly P.W. 11 Dr. (Miss.) Tripti Dutta who had treated Shekhar has stated that he was admitted in the Hospital on 4-2-1972 in the evening as a case of head injury and was discharged on 9-2-1972. She proved necessary documents pertaining to his treatment. In cross-examination, nothing has been suggested contrary to her statement.
13. Thus from the above evidence, it is fully established that the injured claimants were treated both at Moradabad and at Delhi in two different Hospitals.
14. This now leads us to the question of quantum of damages to which each of the claimant should be entitled. However, before actually ascertaining the amount of compensation, it will be better to examine thelegal position in this respect. While awarding compensation in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, two types of damages can be awarded-pecuniary i.e.special damages and non-pecuniary i.e. general damages. The pecuniarydamages are generally awarded in order to make good the pecuniary loss to which the claimant may have been put to on account of the accident and are capable of being computed in terms of money Generally this kindof damages can be sub-divided into (1) towards medical expenses, expenses over special diet prescribed and the cost of nursing or attendant, (2) any loss of earning or profit upto the date of the trial, (3) consequent loss or reduction in the earning capacity immediately or in future and reduction in his capability in the labour market, any loss of salary or other earnings due to the termination of service or its discontinuance or any loss in trade, business and profession on that account, and (4) any other material loss such as any special treatment or aid required by the injured or the claimant for the rest of his life. The non-pecuniary loss or general damages also include anumber of elements and generally includes (1) damages for mental shock and physical pain and suffering already or likely to be suffered in future (2) for loss of amenities of life such as incapability of the claimant to walk, run,sit or diminution of marriage prospects, consortium and such other ameni ties, diminution in the expectation of life due to injury caused and (3) inconvenience, hardship, frustration and mental strains consequent upon theinjury caused by the accident. These are the broad outlines within which claim for compensation due to motor accident has to be considered and this has been so laid down in a Division Bench decision of this Court inSushila Pandey v. New India Assurance Company Limited AIR 1983 Alld 69. In this connection it may also be considered that it is not necessary that for every expense a voucher or bill should be produced while awarding actual expenses incurred on the medical treatment by an injured. It is not seriously disputed that for special treatment, special damages can be awarded. In this case, three of the injured claimants had to undergo special treatment at Delhiand expenses connected therewith would, therefore, be awardable, if proved.
15. We may now take up each case separately for the purposes of computing the compensation awardable to each of the claimants.
Rajendra Prasad Rastogi:
16. He has claimed Rs. 22,000/- by way of damages including Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/-for loss of business. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under any of the heads. The learned Counsel for this claimant has urged that the manner in which the accident took place and the children accompanying him had been badly injured must have caused a serious shock to him. It may be mentioned that all the children travelling along with this claimant at the time of the accident were minors and out of five, four were injured, the only exception being his daughter Ragini.
17. The submission of the learned Counsel appears to be fully justified. Visualising the situation at the time soon after the accident, one can easily understand the sense of shock and alarm with which the claimant must have seen the sight of his children scattered all over with injuries, blood flowing from various parts of their body with lacerated wounds, cuts and swelling over various parts of their limbs. In such a situation, the condition of a father can easily be imagined and to say that he would not have suffered any mental shock and pain would be a traversity of facts. The claimant was, therefore, entitled for damages on account of mental shock and suffering.
18. A claim of Rs. 10,000/-has been put forward for mental shock and Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering In his statement (in para 22) he has stated that he and his four children received injuries causing physical pain and shock after seeing the condition of each other. He also stated that he was a man of status and had several businesses such as cloth business, brick kiln, cane crusher, commission agency of fruits and vegetable, money lending and agriculture. He has filed Income-tax Assessment orders in respect of his various businesses. He has also filed documentary evidence regarding his injuries in the form of out-door ticket of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. From all these it is established that he too had suffered physical injuries and must have suffered pain and suffering on that account.
19. Coming now to the question of loss in business alleged to have been suffered by the claimant, the learned Counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has urged that no documentary evidence has been filed to establish the actual loss suffered by the claimant. According to him, the claimant has admitted that his two other brothers are also partners along with him and during the absence of the claimant, they must have looked after the business themselves. It is true that no evidence about the actual loss suffered on account of the claimant being away in connection with the treatment of his children has been established and it is also true that atleast part of the work which was earlier being looked after by the claimant must have been taken over by his brothers in his absence, yet the business must have affected adversely although its consequences may not be visible immediately. The fact that other brothers had to relieve him will not minimise the loss in business. However, since the amount of any loss has not been quantified, it can not justify that no damages at all should be awarded to the claimant. In my opinion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock and suffering, Rs. 2,000/-for physical pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- by way of loss in business. The appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 458 of 1978, therefore, would be entitled to Rs. 14,000/- by way of compensation in all.
Meenakshi: (Aged 17 years):
(1) Expenses on medical treatment.
(2) Travelling expenses for going to Delhi
(3) Expenses incurred in stay at Delhi,
(4) Travelling expenses locally in Delhi.
(5) For pain and suffering
(6) Loss of education and expectation
of life, due topermanent disability.
(7) Mental shock.
21. The Claims Tribunal has awarded just Rs. 6000/- against all the items. It is urged that compensation under all the subheads should have been awarded to the claimant. It has come in evidence that she had secured Second Division in High School and was to appear in the Intermediate Examination soon after the accident had occurred. She did appear in the examination and secured First Division. The Tribunal has refused to award any compensation only for the reason that she had secured First Division despite the injury and, therefore, there was no loss to her. The claimant as P.W. 8 has stated that she should not secure good enough marks as to get admission in the B.Ed, classes at Moradabad and ultimately she had to join B.A. classes at Meerut and had to stay in the hostel. It may be true that she had secured first division but one can easily imagine the loss to her studies on account of this accident which took place on 3-2-1972. It is well known that intermediate final examination of the U.P. Board are held in the month of March/April each year. The claimant remained in the Hospital for treatment for a sufficiently long time. She has also stated that on account of injury, her right leg has become slightly bent and also a little thick. It pains whenever cold winds blow and it gets swollen in these conditions. According to her she used to be a good athelete and used to take part in games and other extra curricular activities. After the accident, she has been incapacitated in going any of these things. As against this, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that according to the statement of Dr. S. Sarin (P W. 4), from her walk, no sign of deformity or fracture is visible. However, this will only go to establish that outwardly the signs of any deformity or fracture are not apparent but it does not rule out the possibility that the claimant still feels pain and cannot run and cannot take part in sports as any other normal healthy girl of her age. It will certainly be a legacy she will have to carry for many years to come and suffer pain and frustration.
22. In my opinion, she should be awarded at least a sum of Rs. 2500/- on account of loss of education and expectation in life due to her disability. While the claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 250/- for medical treatment, Rs 500/- for travelling and Rs. 250/- for local transportation at Delhi, it has refused to award any amount for expenses incurred in the stay in Delhi and for mental shock and for pain and suffering. For expenses for stay at Delhi, the claimant's father has stated that in connection with her treatment they had to stay at Delhi till the end of June, 1972 but she had been brought to Siana to enable her to appear in the examination. During their stay at Delhi, he had hired a room where they stayed till the end of June. He also stated that Rs. 3000/- was spent by him in connection with their stay at Delhi while the claimant was under treatment there. The witness has not been cross-examined at all on this question. It is true that no rent receipt or any other documentary evidence has been filed by the claimant. However, when it is established that the claimant as well as her two brothers were receiving treatment at Delhi, it is natural that they must have made some arrangement for their stay at Delhi. The claimant's father has specifically stated that he had hired a room till the end of June 1972 and had spent Rs. 3000/- in that connection and he was not cross examined on that point at all from which it follows ihat his statement should have been accepted.
23. No amount has been awarded for mental shock and only Rs. 5000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. It is inconceivable, however, that a girl of 15 years of age shall not suffer any mental shock afterseeing her younger brothers and herself in the midst of an accident of this nature. There can not be any measure of damages for this and, therefore, only special damages have to be awarded. In my opinion a sum ofRs. 5000/- for mental shock would be a just and proper compensation. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5000/- but consideringthe fact that she remained under plaster for a long period in the gruellingmonths of April, May and June, the claimant would be entitled to a higher amount of compensation. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed would be a proper amount under this head. In this manner, this claimantwould be entitled to Rs. 21,500/- by way of compensation in all.
Prashant: (aged 9 years):
24. Against a claim of Rs. 26,800/- as per details below only Rs. 2000/- has been awarded:
(1) Medical expenses at Moradabad and Delhi Rs. 150/-(2) Travelling expenses Rs. 150/-(3) Stay expenses, at Delhi for two months Rs. 1000/-(4) Local transport charges, at Delhi. Rs. 500/-(5) For pain and suffering Rs. 10000/-(6) Loss of Education and expectation of life. Rs. 5000/-Mental shock. -----------Rs. 26800/------------
25. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2000/- for minor injury and for pain and suffering and has rejected the claim for medical expenses and travelling etc. on the ground that it is duplication of the claim made in the petition on behalf of Meenakshi. The Tribunal, however, appears to be wrong in this respect. It has come in evidence that two taxis were engaged as a number of other relations had also accompanied the five injured claimants. It is natural also that when so many children were injured, other family members or relations would have accompanied them to Delhi. The medical evidence shows that while Meenakshi was undergoing treatment at Hindu Rao Hospital, Prashant and Shekhar were under treatment under different doctors in the Safdarjung Hospital. Naturally, the medical expenses and expenses for the local travel would also be separate to some extent. Even if some of the expenses were common the whole of it could not be claimed either by Meenakshi or other injured claimants. It appears that all the expenses incurred on travelling etc. have been apportioned to various injured persons in accordance with the number of journeys to the Hospital and expenses incurred in that connection. It can not, therefore, be legitimately said that there has been any duplication of claim in respect of expenses for travelling and on medical treatment. The Claimant would, therefore, be entitled to Rs. 150/- on account of medical expenses at Moradabad and Delhi, travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 150/- for going to Delhi, transport expenses at Delhi amounting to Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1000/-for expenses incurred over stay at Delhi for two months. Besides this the claimant would also be entitled to Rs. 5000/- as damages for mental shock caused to him. As against the claim for loss of education and expectation of life, he has put forward a claim for Rs. 10,000/-. However, it has not come any where in evidence that be was getting education. He is only of 9 years of age and the injury caused to him was a wound on the right cheek. According to Dr. Indrajeet Singh (PW 10), Prashant had a lacerated wound on the cheek and there was a suspected fracture However, no fracture was ultimately found. PW 9 has, however, stated that the jaw bone of Prashant had been fractured and he can not eat any hard thing. He has also stated that the wound in the cheek had to be stitched and on that account a permament scar has been left.
26. PW 10 Dr. Indrajeet Singh in his statement has testified that there was a fracture in the jaw bone of Prashant which had to be stitched by putting a wire splint and may result in the twisting of the face if the stitching is not proper at the point as he grows. He also stated that he will have to be watched for several years. In these circumstances, the claimant could not be denied damages for pain and suffering or any damages for permanent disfigurement. In my opinion, ends of justice will be met if a sum of Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- for permanent disfigurement is allowed to him. In this manner, this claimant will be entitled to receive Rs. 13,800/- in all.
Alok: (aged about 12 years):
He has claimed Rs. 27,300/- as detailed below against which his claim for Rs. 9300/- has been accepted:
(1) Medical expenses.
(2) Travelling expenses.
(3) Pain and suffering.
(4) Loss of Education and expectation of life.
(5) Mental shock.
27. The claim for medical and travelling expenses has been allowed and the claimant has been awarded Rs. 9000/- against a claim of Rs. 10,000/-for pain and suffering due to the fracture of the leg and loss of four teeth. However, no compensation has been awarded for loss of education and mental shock. However, there is no evidence that he was getting education or that there has been any impairment in his education prospects on account of the injuries caused to him. Therefore notional award of Rs. 1000/- for loss of education and expectation of life due to the fracture of the leg will meet the ends of justice. However, as regards the damages for mental shock, he is certainly entitled to Rs. 5000/-. Thus he will be entitled to the total sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
Shekhar: (Aged about 11 years):
He has claimed Rs. 25,500/- as per details given below against which a sum of Rs. 2000/- only has been awarded on account of minor injury and for pain and suffering:
(1) Medical expenses.
(2) Travelling expenses.
(3) For stay at Delhi.
(4) Transport charges.
(5) For pain and suffering.
(6) For loss of education/expectation of life,
due tophysical disability.
(7) for Mental shock.
28. Nothing has been awarded for medical expenses, travelling expenses, for stay at Delhi and for local transportation of this claimant on account of the duplication of claim in this respect. For the reasons already given earlier, the claimant will be entitled to these expenses.
29. There is no evidence regarding loss of education and, therefore, he is not entitled to any damages on this account. For pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed but he had suffered only a minor injury on the bridge of the nose, for which he has already been awarded Rs. 2000/- which, in my opinion, is fair compensation. For mental shock, his claim of Rs. 5000/- should have been accepted for the reason which I have already discussed earlier. In the circumstances the claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7500/-.
30. In the result F.A.F.O. No. 458 of 1978 is allowed with proportionate costs here and in the court below and the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- by way of compensation.
31. F.A.F.O. No. 319 of 1978 filed by the U.P.S R.T.C. is dismissed while the cross-objection filed by the claimant Alok is allowed. His claim will now stand decreed for Rs. 15,300/-.
32. F.A.F.O. No. 318 of 1978 filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. is dismissed and the cross-objection of Shekhar claimant is allowed to the extent that instead of Rs. 2000/-, he will get Rs. 7500/- as compensation.
33. F.A.F.O. No. 320 of 1978 is dismissed while cross Appeal No. 459 of 1978 is allowed, with proportionate costs here and in the court below. This amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,800/-.
34. F.A.F.O. No. 321 of 1978 filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. is dismissed but the cross-objection filed by Meenakshi is allowed and as against the award of Rs. 6000/-, her claim is enhanced to Rs 21,500/-.
36. In all the appeals filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C, it will bear its own costs while the cross-objectors shall get their proportionate costs from the appellant in this Court as well as in the court below. All the claimants will also get interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment on the amount awarded to each of them respectively.
36. All the F.A.F.Os. are disposed of accordingly.