IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining compensation for motor accidents and the standard of proof required in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant/Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohini, Delhi in Petition No.804/09/10.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that on 09.04.2009 at about 10:30 PM, the deceased - Rajesh Kumar Gandotra boarded a U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) bus bearing No. UP 15 AT 3953 from Anand Vihar to Modinagar Bus stand. It is stated that when the bus stopped at the Modinagar bus stand, the deceased de-boarded the bus. However, as the deceased was crossing the road in front of the bus, the driver drove the bus, running over the deceased. It is stated that, thereafter, the deceased was taken to Modi Nagar Hospital where doctors declared him brought dead. It is stated that, thereafter, an FIR bearing No.154/2009 was registered in respect of the said accident at Police Station Modi Nagar under Sections 279/304A of IPC.

3. It is stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 45 years of age and was working with M/s Manohar Filaments Pvt. Ltd, B-59, GT Kamal Road Industrial Area, Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs.13,100/- per month and bonus since 04.07.2007. A claim for compensation was made against the UPSRTC by filing Petition No.804/09/10 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Since the vehicle had not been insured, the Appellant/UPSRTC contested the claim of compensation for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi vide Judgment dated 31.01.2013 directed a payment of Rs.20,07,472/- to the claimants as compensation to be paid by the Appellant/UPSRTC.

4. It is this Judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

6. A perusal of the material on record discloses that on 09.04.2009 at about 10:30 PM, the deceased - Rajesh Kumar Gandotra, boarded a UPSRTC bus from Anand Vihar to Modinagar Bus stand. The deceased is a resident of Modipon Colony, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. Material on record further discloses that when the bus reached the Modinagar bus stand, the deceased and PW-3 alighted from the bus. However, as they were crossing the road in front of the bus, the driver started the bus and ran over the deceased, thereby killing him. The Ex.PW3/1 is the complaint given to the police and PW-3 has proved the documents. The evidence of PW-3 discloses that he and the deceased, who is the brother-in-law of PW-3, were going to Modi Nagar at about 10:30 PM by a UPSRTC bus and when PW-3 and the deceased getting down from the bus, the accident took place. PW-3 states that deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. There is nothing in the cross-examination which shakes the credibility of PW-3 who is the eye witness to the accident.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the defence taken by the Appellant/UPSRTC is that no accident took place on that date which is belied by the PW-3 and the FIR which was lodged at the instance of PW-3. The version given by the conductor of the bus that no accident took place cannot be accepted in view of the statement of PW-3, the FIR and the cases which have been registered against the driver of the bus.

8. PW-2 is the General Manager of M/s Manohar Filaments Pvt. Ltd. where the deceased was working. It is stated in the evidence of PW-2 that the deceased was working with the said company as Maintenance In-charge and was drawing a salary of Rs.13,100/- per month and was also getting a yearly bonus. The appointment letter of the deceased was also produced and exhibited by PW-2 who was the General Manager of M/s Manohar Filaments Pvt. Ltd. where the deceased had been working. Nothing has been brought on record which disputes this fact.

9. The Motor