The court determined that negligence in a motor accident lay solely with the bus driver, and the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for permanent disability and future prospects, alongside modified interest rates.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. FAFO. No. 1698 of 2008 has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the owner-UPSRTC of the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405 against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2004 (Mohd. Zaheer vs. UPSRTC), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on 18.12.2003, a compensation of Rs. 1,98,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner-UPSRTC of the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405.

2. FAFO No. 2491 of 2019 has also been preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2004 (Mohd. Zaheer vs. UPSRTC), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on 18.12.2003, a compensation of Rs. 1,98,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner-UPSRTC of the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405.

3. Since, both the appeals arise from the same impugned judgment and award, as such, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-UPSRTC submitted that the claimant alleged that on the date of the accident, he was travelling as a pillion rider on Scooter No.DL-1-SB-0460, which collided head-on with the offending bus No.UP-21-L-0405, which was wholly improbable.

5. It was submitted that the factum of the accident was wholly doubtful and even if it is assumed that the accident was indeed caused, even then, from the evidence on record, it was proved that it occurred due to the sole negligence of the scooter driver, who was not made party in the claim petition. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that there was only 40% contributory negligence of the scooter driver, whereas, as per the evidence on record, it was 100%.

6. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the claim petition be dismissed.

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that from the evidence on record, it was proved that the accident occurred head-on, when claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on the above scooter and at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

8. It was further submitted that due to the injuries suffered by the claimant, his right leg below knee was amputated due to which, he has suffered 100% functional disability, because he was unable to work as a salesman in a Saree Shop.

9. It was submitted that prior to the accident, the claimant was working as a salesman in a Saree Shop, but after the accident due to the permanent disability suffered by him, he was unable to do that work, which was also proved from the evidence of his employer PW-2 Sanjay, but still the Tribunal has assessed compensation on the basis tha