# Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 787
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-11
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 665 of 1997
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-kumar-agarwal-v-u-p-s-r-t-c-anr-50590
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section 173- this appeal is preferred by
the owner of the vehicle for damages
caused to the vehicle and for the loss of
business due to the said accident-claimant
is entitled to the deficit amount of Rs.
76,500/- the tribunal has held that the
accident
had
occurred
due
to
the
negligence of the bus of U.P. being driven
rashly and negligently therefore, the
appellant had been reimbursed only by
the insurance company for the salvage but
for the torturous act for loss of business it
is tort feasor who has to make good - the
vehicle was insured with the insurance
company and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as
salvage was paid which was not just
compensation for the damages caused to
the vehicle. The vehicle in the year 1987,
if the appellant wanted to buy a new
vehicle for his survival it would have cost
him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the
remaining amount should have been
ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C.-The
cardinal principal under the provision of
M.V. Act and as per law of torts once it is
held that the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C was
negligent, it goes without saying that the
tribunal has to award compensation for
the same-The amount of Rs. 58,000/-
cannot be said to be full payment for the
damages caused to the appellant- The
vehicle had gone in total loss and
therefore salvage was paid-This aspect
has been overlooked by the tribunal while
deciding the same issue- The tort feasor
namely
U.P.S.R.T.C
will
deposit
an
additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 7%
interest within 12 weeks from today
before the tribunal. (Para 3 to 7)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Colonel Bheem Singh Vs Rajnish National Ins.
Co. 1-1992 Consumer (C.P.J) pabe 205

## Text

8 All. Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
787
amount be deposited in the Saving Account
of claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

16. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.

17. This Court is thankful to Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for respondents for ably assisting
this Court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 787
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 665 of 1997

Pawan Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.B.D. Mishra, Sri Sharve Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Mishra

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section 173- this appeal is preferred by
the owner of the vehicle for damages
caused to the vehicle and for the loss of
business due to the said accident-claimant
is entitled to the deficit amount of Rs.
76,500/- the tribunal has held that the
accident
had
occurred
due
to
the
negligence of the bus of U.P. being driven
rashly and negligently therefore, the
appellant had been reimbursed only by
the insurance company for the salvage but
for the torturous act for loss of business it
is tort feasor who has to make good - the
vehicle was insured with the insurance
company and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as
salvage was paid which was not just
compensation for the damages caused to
the vehicle. The vehicle in the year 1987,
if the appellant wanted to buy a new
vehicle for his survival it would have cost
him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the
remaining amount should have been
ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C.-The
cardinal principal under the provision of
M.V. Act and as per law of torts once it is
held that the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C was
negligent, it goes without saying that the
tribunal has to award compensation for
the same-The amount of Rs. 58,000/-
cannot be said to be full payment for the
damages caused to the appellant- The
vehicle had gone in total loss and
therefore salvage was paid-This aspect
has been overlooked by the tribunal while
deciding the same issue- The tort feasor
namely
U.P.S.R.T.C
will
deposit
an
additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 7%
interest within 12 weeks from today
before the tribunal. (Para 3 to 7)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Colonel Bheem Singh Vs Rajnish National Ins.
Co. 1-1992 Consumer (C.P.J) pabe 205

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned
counsel, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for
the U.P.S.R.T.C.

2. By way of this appeal the claimant
has challenged the dismissal of claim
petition by the order dated 3.5.1997 passed
by MACT/District Judge, Saharanpur, who
dismissed claim petition No. 71 of 1988
preferred by the appellant for claiming
compensation/damages to his taxi car
bearing no. U.M.T. 7855 which collided
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the bus owned by U.P.S.R.T.C.
bearing no. U.H.I. 30, the accident resulted
into death of three people and the vehicle
taxi car was rendered not road worthy. As
far as death claim were concerned claim
petition nos. 64 of 1988, 65 of 1988 and 71
of 1988 were filed and are pending before
M.A.C.T till the date of the judgment in
this matter.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that appellant was the owner of
the taxi car bearing no. U.M.T. 7855. On
26.12.1987 at about 3:00 p.m, his taxi was
driven by one Prem Kumar at normal speed
going from Roorkee to Haridwar when it
reached at place of accident between
Jwalapur and Bahadarabad a U.P.S.R.T.C
bus bearing no. U.H.I. 30 of Dhurmalpur
Depo hit the taxi of the appellant on the
front side resulting in death of three people
on the spot and caused damages to taxi of
appellant.

4. The appeal challenges the non
payment of compensation on the ground
that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus
and not due to driving of the driver of the
car and directed Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport
Corporation
to
pay
compensation.

5. The taxi was the only vehicle by
which the appellant could earn his
livelihood, the vehicle was insured with the
insurance company and a sum of Rs.
58,000/- as salvage was paid which was not
just compensation for the damages caused
to the vehicle. The vehicle in the year 1987,
if the appellant wanted to buy a new
vehicle for his survival it would have cost
him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the
remaining amount should have been
ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C.

6. The finding contrary to the same
are bad in eye of law. The cardinal
principal under the provision of M.V. Act
and as per law of torts once it is held that
the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C was negligent, it
goes without saying that the tribunal has to
award compensation for the same. The
amount of Rs. 58,000/- cannot be said to be
full payment for the damages caused to the
appellant. The vehicle had gone in total loss
and therefore salvage was paid. This aspect
has been overlooked by the tribunal while
deciding the same issue. The judgment of
Colonel
Bheem
Singh
Vs.
Rajnish
National Insurance Company 1-1992
Consumer (C.P.J) pabe 205 also goes to
show that claimant is entitled to the deficit
amount of Rs. 76,500/- with 6% rate of
interest. The submission of Sri S.K.Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondents that the
appellant had settled the dispute with the
insurance
company
and
therefore,
U.P.S.R.T.C. has rightly not been saddled
with
any
liability
by
tribunal,
this
submission cannot be accepted as it is for
the tort feasor to do the good for the wrong,
this is not double benefit but the deficit has
been asked. In our case, the tribunal has
held that the accident had occurred due to
the negligence of the bus of U.P. being
driven rashly and negligently and therefore,
the contradictions has arisen because of
non
consolidation
of
matters.
Claim
petition nos. 64 of 1988 and 65 of 1988
were allowed holding that the driver of the
bus was negligent, therefore, the tort feasor
has to make good the deficit. In that view
of the matter the appellant had been
reimbursed only by the insurance company
for the salvage but for the torturous act for
loss of business it is tort feasor who has to
make good and therefore this order. The
appellant had taken a loan on the said
vehicle which had to be also fulfilled. The
findings of the tribunal are perverse and are
8 All. Smt. Baijanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Sisodiya & Ors.
789
set aside. The bills have been produced and
therefore this additional sum will have to
be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C is the owner of
the vehicle for the tort of its employees. Rs.
58,000/- is paid by the Insurance Company
is under other head as insured. The
judgments of Consumer Forum would not
be applicable. This appeal is preferred by
the owner of the vehicle for damages
caused to the vehicle and for the loss of
business due to the said accident (tort
committed) is allowed.

7. In view of the above, this appeal is
allowed.
The
tort
feasor
namely
U.P.S.R.T.C will deposit an additional sum
of Rs. 50,000/- with 7% interest within 12
weeks from today before the tribunal. The
amount shall not be kept in fixed deposit as
long time has elapsed.

8. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Court below forthwith.

9. This Court is thankful to Sri Sharve
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri
S.K.Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
U.P.S.R.T.C.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 789
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 757 of 1997

Smt. Baijanti Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajesh Sisodiya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Madhav Jain
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinod Kant Srivastava (Senior Advocate), Ms.
Anita Srivastava

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation-Tribunal did not grant any
amount towards future loss of income. the
income of the deceased can be considered
to be Rs.2,400/- per month- The deceased
falls within the category of self employed
and his age was in the age bracket of 35
years at the time of accident, hence, 40%
of income shall be added towards future
loss of income even as per Gobald Motor
Case and 1/3rd shall be deducted for
personal expenses as held in Pranay Sethi
Case - multiplier of 16 will be admissible
as per Smt. Sarla Verma Case- the wife of
the deceased shall be entitled to get
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium in
the light of Judgment in the case of
Pranay Sethi - Further, Rs.50,000/- to the
son of the deceased be granted in view of
the decision in Kurvan Ansari- Hence, the
total amount of compensation is granted
Rs. 5,10,080/-, the rate of interest would
be 7% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till award and 6% thereafter till
deposit of amount.(Para 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kurvan Ansari @Kurvan Ali Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu (2021) 0 AIJEL-SC 67995

2. Gobald Motor Services Ltd. & anr. Vs R.M.K.
Velusamy (1962) SCR 1 929

3. National Ins. Co. Vs Pranay Sethi (2014) 4
TAC 637 SC

4. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs DTC (2009) 2 TAC 677
SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
appellants has challenged the judgment and