Point of Law: When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.

JUDGMENT :

K.J. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri R.K. Porwal for the appellant, Sri M.M. Sahai for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Sri A.A. Khan for the Insurance company in FAFO No.2737 of 2014 and Sri M.M. Sahai for the appellant, Sri R.K. Porwal for the claimant and Sri A.A. Khan for the Insurance company in FAFO No.2795 of 2014.

2. Both these appeals raise issues which have to be decided by the Division Bench in the light of judgment of UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, and the later judgment. The appeal, being Appeal No.2737 of 2014 is preferred by the claimants and the appeal, being Appeal No.2795 of 2014, is preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. Both have challenged what is known as the issue of negligence. The U.P.S.R.T.C. has raised the issue of negligence contending that the Tribunal has committed an error which can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record as the site plan, the record and all the factual data would go to show that the truck came and dashed with the bus whereby the driver of the bus and the passenger scummed to injuries. The evidence of PW-2 has also been ignored by the Tribunal and that is how the judgment dated 10.7.2014 is bad in the eyes of law.

3. The twin issues raised are the finding of fact as far as negligence and compensation is concerned.

4. The skeletal facts are that the accident between bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. and the vehicle driven by the deceased met with an accident on the fateful day i.e. 5.6.2008. All other issues are not required to be decided except the factum of compensation and quantum. On 5.6.2008 Sri Raj Bahadur Singh Bhadauriya and some people, who were travelling from Kanpur to Orai at that point of time when the bus passed Orai, a truck, bearing no.UP93E-6362 came rashly and negligently injuring some and causing death of bread winner of Manju Devi and her children.

5. As far as the compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the judgment of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), will apply and no addition to income will be allowed whereas Tribunal has granted 20% addition which is bad in the eye of law and that the multiplier of 12 granted is on the higher side.

6. Learned Counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has taken us through the assessment and requested that the assessment be recalculated in the light of the settled legal preposition of law.

7. As against this, the appeal preferred by the claimants relates to only compensation. We now come to the factual scenario as it emerged.

8. Shri A.A. Khan has taken us to the site plan and has contended that the facts are such that there was a head-on collision and we should attribute 50% -50% negligence as there was an injury which shows that the driver of the bus was equally negligent.

9. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under :

“16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is