The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to allow oral cross-objections, determine liability based on contributory negligence, and adjust compensation computation in accordance with statutory provisions and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

(I) Introduction

1. This first appeal from order arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.9.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 261 of 2011 (Smt. Meghkaur and Another vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

2. The first appeal from order has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation contesting its liability to pay and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. An oral cross-objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

(II) Case of the claimants and the respondents before the learned Tribunal:

3. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased-Bhikam Singh died in a motor accident on 29.12.2010, which was caused by rash and negligent driving of the UPSRTC bus driver. The deceased was riding a bicycle when he was hit by the offending UPSRTC bus. The claimants were dependant on the deceased and were entitled for compensation from UPSRTC. The UPSRTC resisted the claim of the claimants by filing a written statement. Both parties adduced evidence at the trial.

(III) Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

4. Learned tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of UPSRTC bus number.

5. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2012 awarded compensation which is depicted in a tabulated form hereunder:

6. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on these two issues. The learned tribunal erred by finding against the appellant on the issue of contributory negligence. The compensation awarded to the claimants-respondents was excessive.

7. Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has raised an oral cross-objection contesting the quantum of the awarded compensation. According to the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, the income of the deceased was improperly assessed. The compensation is liable to be enhanced. Rejoining the issue, the learned counsel for the appellant-UPSRTC disputes the maintainability of the cross-objection at the appellate stage.

(IV) Issues for consideration:

8. After advancing their arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agree that though many grounds have been pleaded, only the following questions fall for consideration in this appeal:

(A) Whether oral cross-objections can be raised by the claimants at the stage of appeal?

(B) Whether the driver of the UPSRTC bus was solely responsible for the accident or it was a case of contributory negligence?

(C) Whether learned Tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads:

(i) income

(ii) conventional expenses

(iii) future prospects

(iv) multiplier

(v) interest while computing the compensation?

(V) (A) Issue of oral cross-objection:

9. The question whether oral objections can be raised for an enhancement of compensation at the stage of appeal has been well settled by good authorities in point.

10. The jurisdiction of the appellant court to allow a party to tak