A.F.R.

Reserved on: 19.4.2022

Delivered on: 10.5.2022

Court No. - 2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3139 of 2016

Appellant :- Amit Srivastava

Respondent :- M.D. U.P. S.R.T.C. And 3 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Adil Jamal

Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Saran

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 06.07.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.210 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. as compensation.

3.

The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 29/30.6.2011 at around 01:50 A.M., the petitioner was travelling in Bus No. UP 11 T 2707 from Haridwar to Delhi, when the bus reached near Engineering College at Haridwar, Roorkee Road, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed into a stationary truck. In this accident, the petitioner/appellant sustained grievous injuries due to which he became disabled to the tune of

80%. The appellant was a student of MBA and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m.

1 of 8

4.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellants has preferred this appeal.

5.

The accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident the offending bus was owned by U.P.S.R.T.C. and the driver of the bus was having a valid and effecting driving licence. It is also not in dispute that the bus was being plied on the road with all necessary documents. Hence only the issue of quantum of compensation is to be

decided by this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that a very meagre amount is awarded by learned tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of

accident, the appellant was studying in MBA Course. In this accident, due to grievous injuries in his leg, the leg got shortened and the appellant became 80% disabled as per the medical certificate. Learned counsel submitted that if it would not have happened then the appellant could earn at least Rs.25,000/- per month, after completing his study. But learned tribunal did not consider this fact and assumed his income only Rs.3,000/- per month.

The appellant is a student of B.Com (Pass) and was doing MBA from a reputed Institution in Dehradun. It is next submitted by learned counsel that due to shortening of leg, appellant is not able to walk freely and he is not able to do his daily routine works properly and his career prospective are also adversely affected due to disability. Learned counsel did not consider all this facts. It is vehemently submitted that the medical board has issued disability certificate to the tune of 80% but the learned tribunal has considered the disability to the tune of 40% only which is not just and proper. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions in (i) Syed Sadiq etc v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. 2014 LawSuit (SC) 27; (ii) Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr., 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 644; (iii) Pradeep Kumar Tripathi v. Satish Kumar and others, 2017 0 Supreme (All) 1661; and (iv) Gangu Ram v.

Rishi Pal & Another, 2018 LawSuit (All) 3762, to contend that the tribunal

has not granted just compensation. The calculation given by the tribunal is

2 of 8

not fathomed by this Court as two how for reduction of 1 inch of lower limb the tribunal has awarded such meagre compensation is granted by the tribunal. The appellant sustained serious injuries which has caused not only

physical impairment but lot of mental trauma.

7.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company objected to the submissions made by appellant and submitted that at the time of accident, he was a student, there is no evidence on record that he was earning any amount.