Point of law: The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents-for the Insurance Company and none has appeared for the owner and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal challenges the compensation findings and negligence by the Tribunal being Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No. 695 of 2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 18,67,492/- against the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (U.P.S.R.T.C.) with interest at the rate of 6% from date of application.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondents have not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is the compensation awarded.

4. The accident and involvement of vehicle of respondent is not in dispute, where the vehicle of U.P.S.R.T.C. was not insured with any Insurance Company is also not in dispute. The issue of negligence as decided by Tribunal has attained finality. The only issue raised for our consideration to be decided is the issue of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for tortuous act of the driver of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. (U.P.S.R.T.C.).

5. The brief facts for our purpose which relates to compensation awarded is that accident occurred involving the bus whereby the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal breathed his last. The deceased-Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal was driving the car, he suffered severe injuries and died on the spot. He was running coaching center in the name of Agarwal coaching center at Aligarh and where even students from out side of Aligarh were coming to take coaching and learn.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- to 40,000/- per month. He left behind him his widow and four children who were minor. It is further submitted that claimants have claimed Rs. 70,20,000/- with 18% interest before the Tribunal, thereafter Tribunal has framed the issues.

7. We are concerned with issue no. 7 which relates to compensation. The claimants had produced several documents namely the school living certificate, the income tax returns for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were produced before the Tribunal despite that did not decide.

8. The fact that accident caused the death of deceased is also proved by the postmortem report and that finding has attained finality. The issue of negligence has also been decided in favour of the claimants. His income is sought to be proved by PW-3 Anant Sharma and the widow of deceased namely Smt. Reena Agarwal-PW-1. The Tribunal has considered negligence of the deceased to be 25%.

9. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.

10. 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.

11. 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