Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mewa Ram And Another - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1925 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 15279 (10 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Under challenge in appeal is the judgment, order and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 30.4.2003 passed in MAC No. 94 of 1999 (Mewa Ram Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.). In the accident the claimant-respondent No.2 Babu Singh, who was riding a cycle suffered injury in both his legs. On account of the said injuries steel rods had to be inserted. Accordingly, the claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- with 9% interest.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the corporation bus alone was not negligent and, therefore, the liability has to be apportioned.

I have perused the record and find that while deciding the issue No.1 the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the bus driver. The bus has rammed into the cycle from behind thus causing injury to the claimant-respondent No.2 in both legs. As a result his leg bones were fractured. Since the bus has hit the cycle from behind, I do not find any illegality in the finding so recorded by the Tribunal.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vouchers produced by the claimant were not duly proved. Undisputedly the claimant-respondent was admitted in a nursing home for the treatment of the injuries. Steel rods were inserted in both legs therefore, it is apparent that he must have incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant-respondent has produced vouchers showing the above expenditure. The expenses incurred by the claimant-respondent are not much or in any way excessive and have rightly been allowed. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding.

In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Dt. 10.9.2007

S.S. 1925/2003


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.