The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the bus driver for negligence and the application of legal principles in assessing compensation, particularly the selection of the multiplier based on the age of the deceased or claimants.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

CM. APPL 19761/2014 (delay)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 69 days in filing the Cross-Objections is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.19760/2014 (Cross-Objections)

These Are Cross-Objections filed by Respondents no.1 and 2. Let the Cross-Objections be registered as MAC. APP. 144/2015.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC. APP. 434/2014 & MAC. APP. 144/2015

1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.8,94,967/- was awarded for the death of Sonu who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 01.05.2012 at about 9.00 a.m.

2. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC):

(i) There was no negligence on the part of its driver, therefore, UPSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation; the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability;

(ii) The compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. In the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects, addition of 50% made was unjustified.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents no.1 and 2 states that negligence was conclusively proved and that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Relying on Amrit Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (6) SCALE 1, it is urged that multiplier ought to have been selected as per the age of the deceased instead of age of deceased’s mother.

NEGLIGENCE

4. The Claims Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PW-2 Mahendra, an eye witness to the accident and also Vimlesh Kumar, driver of UPSRTC who entered the witness box as R2W1. Paras 9 to 12 of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

9. The testimony of PW-2 is relevant on this issue. The PW-2 Sh. Mahendra stated that on 01.05.2012 at about 9 am he along with Sonu was going to Sikandara from Khoda and he was accompanying Sh. Sonu to see him off and Sh. Sonu boarded in the bus no. UP-75M-2348 and the bus started moving and the bus driver stopped the bus applying sudden brakes after travelling for about 50 feet and Sh. Sonu fell down from the gate and the driver of the said bus did not stop and went away with his vehicle. The PW-2 stated that 2-3 police man were near to the place of accident and the injured was removed to the Pushpanjali Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The PW-2 stated that the police had recorded his statement. The PW-2 also stated that Sonu fell from the bus and ran over under the rear wheels of the said bus. During cross-examination, the PW-2 stated that when the deceased was boarding into the bus, the bus was stationary and when the deceased boarded in the bus he was alone.

10. On the other hand, respondent no. 2 examined Sh. Vimlesh Kumar as R2W1. Sh. Vimlesh Kumar stated that he had nothing to do with the accident and no accident had taken place because of negligence or rash driving of respondent no.1 and he was having valid driving licence. The R2W1 also stated that on 01.05.2012, he was plying the bus no. UP-75M-2348 abiding all rules and regulations of traffic and was taking all major and minor precautions, at slow speed from Delhi to Etawa and when the Bus reached at Khora Bypass, Ghaziabad at about 9.00 A.M. and the bus was running with slow speed on bypass on the left side and gate of the bus was closed and a boy tried to board on the running bus but his foot slipped and he fell down on the road and sustained injuries and the said accident occurred due to negligence of the boy and his guardian did not stop him from boarding on the running bus with closed gate of the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1. During cross-examination, R2W1 stated that an FIR no. 560/12 was lodged against him and the vehicle no. UP-75M-2348 was seized by the police. The R2W1 stated that he had given a complaint regarding false implication, to PS Indirapuram but wa