In accident cases, liability should reflect the respective negligence of parties, with proper income assessment inclusive of future prospects and non-pecuniary damages being essential for fair compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. The First Appeal From Order No.2200 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT against the judgment and award dated 1.5.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.694 of 2011 (Balak Ram and others Vs. Anil Kumar and others), by which compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Peetam aged about 25 years and the liability has been fixed upon the appellant Insurance Company being insurer of bus.

2. The First Appeal From Order No.1870 of 2015 has been filed on behalf of claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned judgment and award dated 1.5.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.694 of 2011 (Balak Ram and others Vs. Anil Kumar and others).

3. Since both the appeals were filed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 1.5.2015, the same are being heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

4. Heard Sri Anubhav Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for claimants and perused the record. No one is present for the owner of bus.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Sections 140 and 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.32,50,000/- along with 12% interest on account of death of Peetam, who died in a road accident which was occurred on 11.5.2011. It was the case of the claimants before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing No.UP-16E-0518 along with his friend Rajeev and Lavkush and when he reached near village Dotai, the offending Bus bearing no.UP-15Z-9665, coming from opposite direction hit the motorcycle. The bus was driven by its driver very rashly and negligently and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle.

6. The claim petition was contested by the owner as well as insurer of Bus denying the rash and negligent driving of Bus driver and it was pleaded that the deceased alone was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. The claimant Balak Ram was appeared as P.W.-1 and had also produced one Gurmeet Singh, an eye witness of the accident as P.W.-2. The claimants had also produced documentary evidence in support of their claim. The owner of bus had produced Sonu Kumar, who was driver of bus at the time of accident, as D.W.-1.

7. The Claims Tribunal after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record has recorded the finding while deciding issue nos.1 and 5 that it was a case of head on collision and both the vehicles were equally negligent and responsible for the accident. The Claims Tribunal has further recorded the finding that driving licence of bus driver, fitness and road permit of the bus were valid and effective on the date of accident. The income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by claimants from selling milk was disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal and compensation was calculated accepting Rs.100/- per day as income of the deceased. The claim petition filed by claimants was partly allowed by the Claims Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 1.5.2015 award