Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Cyclist Defense, Upholds Rs 28.91 Lakh Soldier Compensation
The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld a compensation award of Rs 28.91 lakh to the family of a 33-year-old Indian Army soldier who died in a road accident 15 years ago. The court dismissed an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), which had challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) order, rejecting the defense that a sudden cyclist appearance caused the crash.
Court's Ruling on Negligence and Evidence
Justice Pankaj Purohit, in his order, emphasized that the tribunal's findings on negligence were based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the UPSRTC bus, which collided from behind with a stationary truck, the order stated. It further noted that the defense raised by the appellant regarding a cyclist remained unsubstantiated, as the bus driver, a key witness, was not examined.
Details of the Accident and Compensation Calculation
The incident occurred in 2011 on the Bareilly-Pilibhit road, where the soldier was traveling as a passenger in a UPSRTC bus. The bus, allegedly driven at high speed, collided with a parked truck, leading to fatal injuries. The claimants, including the widow and minor children of the deceased, filed for compensation, citing loss of dependency and financial security.
The tribunal assessed the compensation based on:
- Income Calculation: Using salary certificates and service records, excluding inadmissible components.
- Deductions: One-third for personal expenses, considering dependents.
- Multiplier: Applied 16x based on the soldier's age group.
- Future Prospects: Added due to his permanent employment in the Indian Army.
The total was set at Rs 28.91 lakh, with the high court affirming this as reasonable and in line with legal principles.
Court's Directive and Background
The court directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with the claims tribunal within two months. In the background, the UPSRTC had argued that the accident resulted from a cyclist suddenly appearing, forcing the driver to brake and collide. However, the tribunal and high court found no credible evidence to support this claim, upholding the original award without interference.
