Anil Kumar, J.@mdashBy means of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 7.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Lucknow/ Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow in MAC Case No. 45 of 2007 Smt. Nagma Bano and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr.
2. Heard Sri Shree Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjay Singh learned Counsel for contesting respondent No. 4.
3. Factual matrix of the present case are that on 3.2.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. at gram Ganjmooradabad District Unnao the U.P.S.R.T.C bus of appellant having registration No. UP 32 BN 3998 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus met with an accident with Motorcycle which was driven by one Insaf Ali as a result of which Insaf Ali died on the spot.
4. In view of the said fact, a claim petition u/s 160 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act'') has been filed by the heirs of the deceased Insaf Ali before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was registered as MAC Case No. 45 of 2007 Smt. Nagma Bano and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr. thereby claiming a compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/-.
5. Further in the said claim petition, the owner of the vehicle i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C and the Insurer of the vehicle Oriental Insurance Company were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively . After exchange of the pleadings, documents and evidence etc., the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of the material on record by judgment and award dated 7.5.2009 allowed the claim petition by awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the application in favour of the claimants.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Lucknow/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow the present appeal has been filed by the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. Through Regional Manager, Lucknow u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
7. Sri Shree Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and award has submitted that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus as he was driving the bus in normal speed as prescribed and the deceased himself hit his motorcycle with the bus of the appellant due to rash and negligent driving.
8. He further submits that at the time of the accident , the vehicle in question which is owned by the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. was covered with a valid license as well as insurance policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited . An argument was also advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant although in respect to the same there is no pleading that as the matter of practice and procedure in the Corporation, the vehicle is sent on the route on the basis of the permit which is covered by another vehicle as such action on the part of the Tribunal thereby passing the impugned judgment against the appellant on the ground that the vehicle in question at the time of accident was not covered by permit hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation is incorrect and contrary to law thus the impugned award is arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.
9. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had defended that the impugned award passed by the tribunal is based on material evidence and record. It is categorically established and proved at the time of accident the vehicle (bus) which is owned by the appellant is not covered by any valid permit and on the basis of such findings , the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal which is perfectly valid and needs no interference.
10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and it will be appropriate to discuss before adjudicating and deciding the dispute which is involved in the present case , the aims and object behind framing of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Parliament. The same in nut shell is summarized in order to regulate the transport system in the country, the first enactment relating to motor vehicles in India was the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914, which was subsequently replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Act of 1939 had been amended several times. In spite of several amendments it was felt necessary to bring out a comprehensive legislation keeping in view the change in the transport technology, pattern of passenger and freight movements, development of the road network in the country and particularly the improved techniques in the motor vehicles management. Various Committees as well as the Law Commission had gone into different aspects of road transport. Several Members of Parliament had also urged for comprehensive review of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Accordingly in order to consolidate and amend the law relating to Motor Vehicles, the Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1989.
11. Further, " Motor Vehicle", "permit", "Public Service Vehicle" and Transport Vehicle are defined u/s 2 Sub-section (28) (31) (35) and 47) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988:
(28) "Motor Vehicle" or "Vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon road whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external and internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding[ twenty-five cubic centimeters];
(31) "permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as transport vehicle;
(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward , and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage , and stage carriage;
(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage , an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;
12. Chapter V. of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles and in the said chapter Section 66 provides as under:
66 Necessity for permits. (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him in use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
13. Moreover in the said chapter Sections 70, 71 and 72 provides the procedure for application for stage carriage permit , procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit and grant of stage carriage permit respectively.
14. In view of the said provision as find place in Chapter V. of the Act , legal position which emerges out that the vehicle which either owned by private individuals or by Corporation or by any authority can operate on a route in order to carry the passengers only when it holds a valid permit to use the said vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place subject to conditions as mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Act.
15. Now reverting to the facts of the present case , it is not disputed between the parties that the vehicle in question (Bus No. U.P. 32 BN 3998) is owned by U.P.S.R.T.C. and the same is being operated as transport vehicle to carry the passengers on a particular route. The factum of the accident that one Sri Insaf Ali died due to accident which has taken place between the bus of the Corporation and the Motorcycle driven by the deceased on 3.2.2007 at gram Ganjmuradabad district Unnao. In order to adjudicate and decide the dispute which is involved in the case , the Tribunal framed seven issues, out of which issue No. 1 was framed to the effect that whether at the time of the accident vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the bus or not? The Issue No. 3 is to the effect that at the time of accident whether the bus was driven as per the terms of the insurance policy or not?
16. From the perusal of the material on record, learned Tribunal on the basis of the material documentary evidence on record as well as the statement of witnesses came to the conclusion that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver Sri Amar Singh as a result of which Insaf Ali died on the spot . Accordingly the submission as made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the bus in question has not been driven by the driver of the bus rashly and negligently and an accident has taken place due to the own fault of the deceased Insaf Ali , has got no force and the same is rejected.
17. Second submission as made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that at the time of accident the bus was covered with valid documents i.e. permit, registration , insurance and even if it was not covered by the valid permit as per the practice and procedure adopted by the Corporation that vehicles are sent on the route on the basis of the permit issued to another vehicle as such the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation but the same is payable by insurance company is factually incorrect and wrong submission. In this regard issue No. 3 was framed by the Tribunal and while deciding the said issue finding of fact has been given by the Tribunal that at the time of accident, bus was covered by valid insurance policy but the same was operated without valid permit, so the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. Said findings given by the Tribunal are perfectly valid and in accordance with law as provided u/s 66 of the Act, as stated above which specifically provides that transport vehicle can only operate on the route with a valid permit and in the present case , it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that bus in question at the time of accident was not covered by valid permit issued as per the provisions as provided under Sections 70, 71, and 72 of the Act.
18. Further even otherwise while deciding the issue No. 3 , the Tribunal has also given a categorical finding that the Corporation/ appellant could not claim the benefit of the provisions of Section 103 of the Act because the mandatory provisions and the directions as provided u/s 101 and 102 of the Act has not been complied by the Corporation.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant fails to point out that in what manner and circumstances the said findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are perverse in nature and contrary to the material on record.
20. Needless to mentioner herein that this Court while adjudicating and deciding the dispute as the appellate authority can set aside the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal/ Court below while exercising the appellate power only if the same are contrary to the material fact on record and perverse in nature . The said two conditions does not exist in the present case, so there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the judgment and award dated 7.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Lucknow/ Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow in MAC Case No. 45 of 2007 Smt. Nagma Bano and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr..
21. For the foregoing reasons, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Further , the statutory amount deposited by the appellant at tie time of filing of the appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act in this Court be transmitted to the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Lucknow by the registry of this Court within a period of fifteen days from today and thereafter the Tribunal shall execute the award in question in favour of the claimant within a further period of two months.
22. No order as to costs.
