HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2327 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant- Corporation against the Judgment and Award dated 27.06.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 543/2016 (Bholanath and another v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. through Regional Manager Gorakhpur and another), whereby for the untimely death of Radheyshyam in an accident which occurred on 10.04.2016, a compensation of Rs. 4,14,750/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the legal heirs of Radheysham. 2. Learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Radheyshyam, who was driving the motorcycle no. UP 51 Q 8641. At the time of alleged accident, the deceased suddenly came on the main road without noticing that the bus of the appellant was coming on the main road. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening contributory negligence of only 30% on the deceased whereas it should have been 50%. Learned counsel further submitted that the site-plan of the accident duly proved that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the UPSRTC and perused the record. 4. The appellant has examined the driver of the offending bus no. UP 53 CT 0968 Ashok Kumar Singh as D.W.-1, who in the cross examination Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinkar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Bhola Nath And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) denied the accident but admitted that he was enlarged on bail by the Basti Court. He also denied the suggestion that he was not driving the offending vehicle (bus) on the date of the accident. 5. PW-2 Raju Verma has deposed that he saw the accident from a distance of 4-5 meters and at that time the motorcycle was being driven at a speed of about 20 km per hour. Also, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the bus driver Ashok Kumar Singh. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the site-plan of the accident conclusively proves that the deceased came on the main road from a side road, as such, the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruwilla And Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan And Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that the mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident occurred, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn, as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. 8. It is evident that the driver of the offending bus has completely denied the accident and has not mentioned anything about contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver, as such, in absence of any contrary evidence, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was solely responsible for the alleged accident. In view of the above facts, the Tribunal has determined 30% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the motorcycle at that time, which requires no interference in this appeal. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the FAFO No. 2327 of 2025 2 appellant. 9. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 10. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 11. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed. 12. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 7, 2025 Rama Kant FAFO No. 2327 of 2025 3 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad