UPSRTC v. Arti Devi & Ors.

1. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the impugned Award dated 18.02.2021 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.30,89,672/- along with @ 8% per annum has been awarded on account of death of the deceased, Mr. Deepak Kumar, aged 27 years, in a road accident on 23.10.2018.

2. The Appellant has challenged the Award on the following grounds:-

(i) That the deceased was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, there was no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition;

(ii) That there is no eye witness to the accident to prove the negligence;

(iii) That Minimum Wages of Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, of which the family was the permanent resident, instead of Delhi should have been taken.

3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Claimant has vehemently contended that the Aadhar Card of Ms. Arti, wife of deceased, clearly shows that she was a resident of Dakshin Puri. Infact, the entire family was residing on rent in Delhi and therefore, the Minimum Wages of Delhi have been rightly taken by the learned Tribunal. Also, for the same reason, the learned Tribunal had the territorial jurisdiction and the petition has been rightly entertained.

4. It is further argued that the Driver himself had appeared as a witness and denied the factum of the accident. It is submitted that there is no error apparent in the impugned Award and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Submissions heard.

6. The first aspect for consideration is the Territorial Jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal has referred to the Aadhar Card of Ms. Aarti, which is of the address at Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that since the claimant was residing in Delhi, it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

7. It may be that the entire family was a permanent resident of Bihar or that the deceased at the time of accident was residing in Noida, but considering that the wife of the deceased is shown as resident of Dakshin Puri by virtue of Aadhar Card, there is no ground for interference in the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to territorial jurisdiction.

8. Insofar Minimum Wages as the second ground of challenge, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the deceased was working in Delhi and therefore, minimum wages at best of UP should be taken.

9. The first pertinent document is the FIR No. 799/2018 dated 24.10.2018 recorded on the basis of the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar, Uncle of the deceased, who began his statement by saying that his nephew is a permanent resident of Bihar and, presently residing in Morna, Noida, Uttar Pradesh on rent, was going on his cycle to his residence.

10. The FIR itself clearly reflects that the deceased was a resident of Uttar Pradesh. No ID-Card or Aadhar Card or any other document has been placed on record to show that the deceased was ever a resident of Delhi.

11. It is pertinent to refer to the testimony of PW-2, Shri Madhur Mittal, who in his cross-examination stated that the deceased was working with him on his Tea Stall at Khari Bawli. However, in the next line he stated that the deceased was a Carpenter, working on daily wages. The case of the claimant also was that that deceased was a Mason by profession. The wife of the deceased had also deposed that the deceased was a Mason.

12. It is therefore apparent that there was a contradiction in the profession of the deceased.