Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 122495 (ALL)

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THRU. REGIONAL MANAGER FAIZABAD v. NAGENDRA TIWARI AND ANOTHER

FAFO/68/2025 · 2025-02-11

Rajnish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8572 Court No. - 4 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 68 of 2025 Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Regional Manager Faizabad Respondent :- Nagendra Tiwari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 22.11.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.327 of 2018(Nagendra Tiwari versus Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,Ayodhya and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur submits that no reason has been accorded for discarding the evidence of the driver-Rakesh Dubey, who appeared as D.W.1, wherein he has stated that no accident had occurred from his bus. He further submits that the interest has been awarded on the future prospects, which could not have been awarded. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record of this appeal. 4. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence of eye witness P.W.2 and D.W.1 recorded a finding that the eye witness has proved the accident and nothing could be extracted in cross examination, which may disbelieve his evidence. Thus the evidence of D.W.1 is not believable. Even otherwise, the D.W.1 has only denied that no accident had occurred between 12:30 to 12:33 in his statement. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that no finding has been recorded for dis-believing the evidence of D.W.1 is misconceived and not tenable. 5. The issue of future prospects 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 on the ground that future prospect is a component of the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicle Act, which accrues on the date of accident but not paid by the owner or insurer, therefore the interest is awarded from the date of claim petition upto the date of payment. 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." 6. 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. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench