In motor accident death claim, negligence upheld via rear-end collision absent driver testimony; compensation affirmed using documented salary, age-based multiplier 16, personal expenses deduction, and future prospects, with no appellate interference sans perversity.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, assailing the judgment and award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.105 of 2011, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.28,91,216/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants on account of the death of Ganesh Singh in a motor accident dated 07.07.2011.

2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 07.07.2011 at about 05:30 A.M., deceased Ganesh Singh was travelling as a bona fide passenger in a bus bearing registration no. UP-25 T-9467, owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was proceeding from Bareilly towards Tanakpur on the Bareilly-Pilibhit road. It was submitted that the bus was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near Lalorikheda Tiraha, the driver lost control and the bus collided from behind with a stationary truck bearing registration no. UP-21 N-3840, which was parked on the roadside. As a result of the collision, Ganesh Singh sustained serious injuries and was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Pilibhit, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day during treatment. The deceased was stated to be aged about 33 years, serving in the Indian Army (5 Guards Regiment) as a Naik and earning a regular salary along with allowances. The claimants asserted that due to his untimely death, they suffered irreparable loss of dependency, love and affection, and financial security.

3. The claim petition was filed by the minor children of the deceased through their mother and natural guardian, along with the widow of the deceased. It was pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver employed by UPSRTC. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a healthy and disciplined Army personnel drawing a monthly salary of Rs.24,271/-, besides several allowances and benefits. The claimants asserted that the deceased used to contribute substantially towards the maintenance of the family and education of the minor children. The claimants relied upon documentary evidence including the First Information Report, post- mortem report, salary certificate, service record, family register, and other official documents to establish the accident, death, age, income, and dependency. On these premises, compensation under various heads was claimed.

4. The driver of the bus, arrayed as respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal, did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte. Consequently, no independent written statement was filed by the driver denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving.

5. The appellant-Corporation filed its written statement denying the allegations of negligence. It was pleaded that the bus was being driven carefully and at a normal speed. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to a sudden appearance of a cyclist on the road, in an attempt to save whom the driver applied brakes, resulting in the bus colliding with a stationary truck. It was further pleaded that the truck was wrongly parked on the road without any signal or indicator and that the driver of the bus was not at fault. The appellant also questioned the quantum of compensation claimed and contended that the claim was exaggerated and