Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4425 Court No. - 4 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 42 of 2025 Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Its Regional Manager Regional Office Respondent :- Rajaram @ Rajnu And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard, Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased had not died in the alleged accident by the vehicle of the appellant corporation because the driver was produced as a witness in the tribunal, who has disclosed that no such accident had occurred from his vehicle and nothing could be extracted in cross-examination, which may create any doubt about his veracity but without considering the same merely because the prompt F.I.R. was lodged, the accident has been found proved, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is not tenable. He also submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the basis of last salary drawn only and the interest has been awarded on future prospects, which could not have been done. 3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the impugned judgment and award and the documents placed on records of this appeal. 4. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged accident had not occurred from the vehicle of the appellant corporation is not correct because it has not been disputed that deceased was travelling in the vehicle and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly after the accident. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the Police of Dial 100 and the ticket was available with him. But the driver has specifically denied that he had not dropped any passenger at the alleged spot of accident, whereas it has not been disputed that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the Police of the Dial 100 from the spot of the accident and it has also been proved by the brother of the deceased. The tribunal has also recorded a finding that it is obvious that a driver would never accept the accident and denial of even dropping of the deceased at the place of accident indicates that the driver has not given the correct facts. Even otherwise, he has not stated that where the deceased was dropped. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the quantum is misconceived and not tenable because the tribunal has rightly assessed the salary on the basis of last drawn salary which was proved. 6. So far as the interest on the future prospects is concerned, the same can not be denied in accordance with law because the said amount accrues on the date of accident and it is not paid. The issue has already been decided by this Court on 09.12.2024 in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. Lko. through R.M. Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi; F.A.F.O. No.42 of 2016. The relevant paragraphs 36 and 37 are extracted here-in- below:- "36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case Union of India Vs. Rina Devi; (2019) 3 SCC 572, considered the issue of interest on the compensation in case of untowered incident under the Railways Act. However, held that legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conflicting views stand resolved in this manner. It has been held in this case that the law law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. 37. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable and this Court is of the view that the claimant-respondent is entitled for the future prospects and interest thereon also." 7. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award, which may call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The statutory deposit made before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith and in any case within a period of two weeks from today, which may be adjusted towards payments to be made to the claimant- respondents under the impugned judgment and award dated 05.11.2024 passed in Claim Petition No.101 of 2020 (Rajaram @ Rajnu and Another Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Another) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench