The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for deciding negligence and contributory negligence in motor accident claims, as well as the computation of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None is present for the respondents who are deemed to be served.

2. This appeal, at the behest of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, challenges the judgment and award dated 16.01.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. P. No. 776 of 2014.

3. Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased-Brahmdev Gupta. He was driving his Car from Bareilly to Badaun and when he reached village-Kheda, Tehshil Aonla, the bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. bearing No. U.P. 25 AT/1037, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed with the car which was being driven by deceased-Brahmdev Gupta, though the deceased tried to save himself and bring the car to its left side namely on pathway. Before the deceased could be taken to the hospital, he breathed his last. He was 56 years of age, was working in Jila Yuva Samanwaya Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan, U.P. and Uttrakhand and was earning Rs.95,960/- per month. The legal heirs were dependent on him and, therefore, have claimed sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- with interest.

4. The U.P.S.R.T.C. filed its reply which was one of denial. It has denied the fact that the bus was being driven against the Traffic Rules. The driver of bus has contended that it was the driver of the Maruti Car namely deceased who came on the wrong side and dashed with the bus. It is submitted that the First Information Report was filed against the driver of said bus but the facts narrated are far from truth. The driver of bus has also filed his reply of denial.

5. The claimants examined Shreey Dev and P.W.1, Sukhchain who was the eye witness as P.W.2. P.W.3, Dinesh Yadav and P.W.4, Dev Dhwani Gupta has also been examined on oath. The claimants filed documentary evidence so as to bring home the case that the accident caused the death of the deceased.

6. The appellant herein examined D.W.1, Jay Prakash and D.W.2, Sushil Kumar and D.W. 3, Rajesh Kumar. All of them have supported the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. The main grounds urged before this Court by U.P.S.R.T.C. through its counsel are that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, the award is bad in the eye of law as the amount awarded is arbitrary and on the higher side. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the witnesses relied by claimants at place of incident is highly doubtful and the evidence of the driver of the bus has been wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal.

7. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court. While dealing with submission on issue of negligence raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into.

8. 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 though it 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.

9. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is co author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place and that amount will be deducted from the compensation payable to him if he is injured