Delhi High Court
Mohammad Nazre Alam vs Raseed And Ors. on 7 February, 2007
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Mohd. Nazre Alam, a minor when the accident took place has been denied any relief by the learned judge, M.A.C.T., holding that accident in question is due to his fault. There are traces in the award which show that probably the judge has also held that involvement of the bus is not established.
2. A little penetrative look at the documents proved and in particular the Exh. PW 1/2 would have thrown light on what happened.
3. Exh. PW 1/2 is a certified copy of the site plan prepared by the police after the accident. At point B of the site plan is the position of the offending bus No. DEP 7051. At point A is the cycle which was being ridden by the appellant.
4. Learned trial Judge has noted that since the appellant claimed to have lost consciousness immediately after the accident, he was an unbelievable witness when he stated that he was hit by bus No. DEP 7051.
5. Admittedly, the bus and the cycle were found on the road in an accidental condition. The marking of the place on the site plan showing position of the cycle and bus shows that the two have collided.
6. Exh. PW 1/2 clearly establishes that bus No. DEP 7051 hit the cycle.
7. Or, did the cycle hit the bus?
8. Learned trial Judge has noted that the appellant was traveling on the road at a distance of 35 ft from the left pavement.
9. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, opined that the appellant was in default.
10. I have perused Exh. PW 1/2.
11. The constable who prepared the site plan has recorded that the width of the road was 65 ft.
12. From a perusal of the site plan, a dimension 35 ft has been noted in respect of a bus stand towards the southern direction of the road.
13. The position of the said bus stand shows that it is on the centre verge of the road. It bisects the road into two halves.
14. On the northern side, the road is not bisected.
15. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that if the road was 65 ft in width and the appellant was 35 ft towards the centre of the road measured from the left pavement, the appellant would be on the wrong side of the road.
16. The arguments have to be noted and rejected for the reason, the road is not of uniform width. At an approximate length of nearly 200 ft road has a bulge on either side. The site of the accident shows that the cycle and bus have collided on the stretch of the road having a bulge. At the bulge, the width of the road is nearly 100 ft.
17. Exh. PW 1/2 shows that the bus is on the wrong side of the road.
18. No doubt, a cyclist is expected to paddle on the extreme left of the road. But so is the bus. Traffic rules require buses to keep on the extreme left side of the carriageway.
19. Be that as it may, appellant was a minor. Youth is bound to have enthusiasm and a desire to take risks. If this would not be inherent in every youth, half of the society would be without a progress.
20. As a minor, appellant cannot be faulted in paddling down the road even at a distance of 35 ft from the edge of the road as long as he was on his correct side of the road and there was no traffic in front.
21. Traffic coming from the opposite side was expected to keep on its left side of the road.
22. Exh. PW 1/2 conclusively establishes not only the involvement of the bus but even negligence of the driver of the bus. The bus has crossed over the middle of the road and is on the wrong side.
23. Since the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant was negligent, unfortunately nothing has been awarded as compensation and there is not even any discussion thereon.
24. Since an interim sum of Rs. 12,000 was paid to the appellant, learned Tribunal has held that the sum be not recovered on the principle of no fault liability.
25. No useful purpose would be served to remand the matter. The accident took place on 9.5.1990.
26. Fortunately for me appellant is present in court. In relation to his photograph on the claim petition, I can identify the present person as the appellant.
27. Appellant has shown to me his right arm. The muscles have suffered atrophy. The forearm is limp. There is no movement of the right wrist, palm and fingers.
28. The right arm of the appellant is totally immobile and has been rendered useless.
29. The appellant was not doing any work as he was a minor when the accident took place.
30. I have questioned the appellant. He says that he has got himself registered with the employment exchange under the handicapped quota. He has not got a job.
31. He says that due to handicap, he is not able to get any employment. Nobody finds him of any use.
32. Taking note of the disability suffered and the fact that appellant has been rendered virtually incapable of any meaningful job for the reason, he cannot be employed on a desk job, as also that his right arm is damaged, I am of the opinion that appellant has been rendered virtually useless. Any job he could have got would involve manual use of both hands.
33. Including amount payable for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, I feel that a fair and just compensation to the appellant would be Rs. 2,50,000.
34. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of awarding compensation to the appellant in sum of Rs. 2,50,000. The compensation shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from date of claim petition till realisation. Rs. 12,000 paid as interim compensation shall be adjusted.
35. Needless to state since the vehicle was insured, the liability would be joint and several of the owner/driver as also the insurance company.
36. The money to be paid to the appellant would be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank or with the post office, whosoever gives maximum interest. For a period of 15 years the deposit would not be permitted to be encashed or pledged. Interest accruing would be paid over to the appellant.
37. No costs.
