Delhi Transport Corporation And ... vs Ambica Chaudhary And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 522/2003 is directed against the judgment dated 2nd May, 2003, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the" Tribunal") in Suit No. 848/1996, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.

:2: FAO 552/2003

2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Tribunal, are as under :

"The facts, as borne out from the claim petition, are rather brief. It is stated that, on 3.8.96, at about 7.25 p.m. Ripu Chowdhary was waiting for a bus Along with his cousin when he was hit by a DTC bus number DEP-9214 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The injured Ripu Chowdhary was taken to Safdarjung hospital where he was declared brought dead. The driver of the bus was arrested. It is further stated that, Ripu Chowdhary at the time of his death, was 16 years of age. He was running a grocery shop and was earning Rs.10,000-, out of which, he was sending Rs.5,000/- at home. Consequent to his death his parents have been rendered destitutes as there is none else in the family to look after them. It is also stated that FIR in respect of the accident was recorded at Police station Mehrauli vide FIR No. 401/96.

Summons of th claim petition were sent to the Delhi Transport Corporation (in short referred to as DTC) as respondent No.1, its driver, Shri Paramjit Singh, as respondent No.2. Pursuant to the service of summons written statement signed by Regional Manager, DTC was filed on behalf of both the respondents. It is, inter alia, stated in the written statement that respondents were not liable to pay compensation as the bus in question was not involved in the accident. It is however not disputed that bus number DEP-921 belonged to DTC and FIR No.401/96 was recorded in respect of the accident.

:3: FAO 552/2003

On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DEP-9214 by respondent No.1.?

2.To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?

3.Relief."

3. In order to prove her case, the claimant, Parika Chowdhary, has examined herself and has also examined Monika Dass, the eye-witness. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. has returned a finding that the bus No. DEP-9214 was involved in the accident of Ripu Chowdhary, the victim. He has also returned a finding that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and thereafter, went on to assess the amount that could be awarded. The Tribunal after taking the basis of the earning of the victim to be of a skilled labour under the Minimum Wages Act has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600/-.

:4: FAO 552/2003

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that no accident took place with the offending bus and that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the case of the claimant. He also submits that the sum awarded by way of an award is far in excess than is proved.

5. Heard counsel and have perused the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. From the statement of Parika Chowdhary as also of Monika Dass, I find that the bus No. DEP-9241 belonging to Delhi Transport Corporation was the bus that was involved in the accident resulting in the death of Ripu Chowdhary. The fact that the driver of the bus ran away from the spot is indicative of the manner in which the bus was driven as also of the utter disregard shown to human life by the driver. As regards the awarded amount of Rs.1,53,600/-, the basis that has been taken by the Tribunal is that which is available under the Minimum Wages Act. I see no infirmity therein. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to entertain

:5: FAO 552/2003

this appeal. FAO 552/2003 is accordingly dismissed. CM 1136/2003 also stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The entire amount of compensation deposited in this case shall be released to the claimants in terms of the award.