Uttarakhand Transport Corporation v. Savita & Anr

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation [‘UTC/Corporation’] assailing judgment dated 21st May 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in MACP No. 247/2011, whereby compensation of Rs.9,79,599/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded [‘impugned award’].

2. The cross appeal, being MAC.APP. 198/2014, was decided by this Court vide judgement dated 09th April 2026, and accordingly, the aforesaid compensation was enhanced by Rs.6,09,461/- to Rs.15,89,060/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. MAC.APP. 836/2013 Page- 2/9

3. Mr. Daleep Dhyani, counsel for appellant/Corporation, assails the impugned award on the ground that negligence has been attributed to the offending vehicle.

4. The accident took place on 23rd April 2011, at about 2:30 pm, when Bharat Kumar [hereinafter ‘deceased’] was coming home on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-13S-5452 from UP Border via Shahdara Flyover. When the deceased reached GT Road Flyover, Shahdara, a bus bearing no. UA-07H-8815 owned by appellant/Corporation [hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’], being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of deceased from the back side, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased. He was taken to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, where he was declared as ‘brought dead’.

5. Mr. Daleep Dhyani, counsel for appellant/Corporation, states that the impugned award relies upon the testimony of the alleged eyewitness [PW2], in order to reach the conclusion that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent; however in the FIR which was registered, it has been specifically stated that no eyewitness was found. He further states that, during his cross-examination, PW[2] stated that he was residing in the same residential area as that of the deceased and, therefore, he was an interested witness.

6. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for the claimants, however, points out to the site plan, and the evidence by way of affidavit rendered by R1W[1] [driver of the offending vehicle]. The case set up by R1W[1], as per Mr. Parashar, counsel for the claimants, was that the deceased was the motorcyclist, overtaking the offending vehicle from the left/wrong side; due to high speed, the deceased lost his balance and slipped on the road, sustaining fatal injuries. MAC.APP. 836/2013 Page- 3/9 During cross-examination of R1W[1], he admitted that he had not filed any complaint at any police station, but had given a letter complaint to the incharge, who had issued duty slips to intimate that that no accident had taken place with his vehicle. He further stated that he had seen a motorcyclist “coming in the back side of his bus”. The motorcyclist was driving the motorcycle at a high speed, and therefore, slipped. R1W[1] stated that the motorcyclist was trying to either overtake the offending vehicle “or some TSR”, which was being driven at a distance of about 15-20 metres ahead of the bus.

7. On this basis, Mr. Parashar, counsel for the claimants, contends that the story which has been put forward by R1W[1] cannot be sustained, since it is not corroborated by the site plan and the Mechanical Inspection Report.

8. In order to assess the relative contentions, the site plan is extracted as under for reference: MAC.APP. 836/2013 Page- 4/9

9. The note under the site plan records that the motorcycle had been hit from the back, which indicates that it had been involved in a rear-end collision. The site plan also indicates that the collision had occurred on the rightmost part of the lane, on which both the vehicles were driving, and which was next to the divider. The assertion of R1W[1] that the motorcycle was overtaking the offending vehicle from ‘left side’ may, therefore, not synchronise with the site plan, considering that the vehicles were on the right MAC.APP. 836/2013 Page- 5/9 side, and the question of overtaking from the ‘left side’ does not arise.

10. Moreover, the Mechanical Inspection Report confirms that the collision occurred from the rear-end, since it records that the silencer box cover was dented, and the upper plastic of the tail light was broken. The assertion made by driver of the offending vehicle that [R1W1], the deceased had come under the left tyre of the offending vehicle is, therefore, not corroborated by the site plan and the Mechanical Inspection Report.

11. Further, there is no doubt that the testimony of PW[2] cannot be considered credible, as rightly pointed out Mr. Dhyani, counsel for appellant/Corporation, since the FIR records that there was no eyewitness, and PW-2 could have been an interested witness.

12. However, the issue of negligence has to be decided on a ‘preponderance of probabilities’. Therefore, upon an examination of the aforesaid records, this Court does not see any reason to displace the conclusion rendered by the MACT, even though the MACT relied on the testimony of PW-2 for this purpose.

13. Mr. Dhyani, counsel for appellant/Corporation, further raises an issue regarding the quantum of compensation. He contends that the monthly income was incorrectly taken as Rs.7,826/-, since there was no proof of any income being generated by the deceased, who was a still student pursuing B.A. from the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi.

14. However, the Court finds that assessment made by the MACT, in fact, records that since there was no conclusive proof regarding income of the deceased, who was 23 years old at the time of death, it would be calculated in MAC.APP. 836/2013 Page- 6/9 terms of the minimum wages applicable to a matriculate.

15. The Court does not see any reason to displace the aforesaid finding, as it conforms with the principles enunciated in various decisions of this Court. This Court, in Savita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2365, has already examined the principles that ought to inform the Tribunal in assessment of benchmark income. For ease of reference, relevant portion from said judgement is extracted as under: