D.T.C. & Anr. vs Kamlesh
2009 Latest Caselaw 1401 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of Decision: 15th April, 2009

%

+      MAC.APP. 435-36/2006

       D.T.C. & ANR.                         ..... Appellants
                  Through : Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with
                            Mr. Ataul Haque and
                            Ms. Arti, Advocates
                  versus

       KAMLESH                                        ..... Respondent
                       Through: None

+      MAC APP. 483-84/2006

       D.T.C. & ANR.                         ..... Appellants
                  Through : Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with
                            Mr. Ataul Haque and
                            Ms. Arti, Advocates
                  versus

       SURESH                                           ..... Respondent
                       Through: None

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.       Whether Reporters of Local papers may                       No
         be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.       To be referred to the Reporter or not?                      No

3.       Whether the judgment should be                              No
         reported in the Digest?


                              JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the common award

whereby four claim petitions were decided by the learned

Tribunal.

2. On 10th October, 2007, there was a bomb blast in a DTC

bus in which Suresh was traveling with his wife and two

minor children. Suresh and his wife suffered injuries whereas

their son, Dharmender aged 2 years lost his life and

daughter, Pinki suffered injuries. Four separate petitions

were filed before the learned Tribunal, one in respect of the

death of their child, Dharmender and three claim petitions

with respect to the injuries. Common award was passed

disposing of all the four petitions. The appellant has accepted

and satisfied the two awards and the appeals have been filed

in two cases relating to the injuries suffered by Suresh and

his wife Kamlesh.

3. The claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The permanent disability was

not proved by both the claimants and the learned Tribunal

treated both the petitions under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and awarded compensation of Rs.22,300/- to

Suresh and Rs.51,000/- to Kamlesh.

4. The appellant has deposited the award amount with the

learned Tribunal which has been released to the claimants

against security in terms of the order of this Court.

5. The ground of challenge in this appeal is that the

petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act could

not be converted to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Secondly, even if the conversion can be done, the

compensation could not have been awarded under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act since the negligence has not

been proved which is a mandatory requirement under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

6. There is merit in the contention of the learned senior

counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the finding of the

learned Tribunal to the above extent is set aside and the

question of law is left open to be examined in an appropriate

case. However, considering that the claimants lost their child

in the accident and the claimants as well as their minor

daughter suffered injuries in the unfortunate accident and

also the amount involved, the award of compensation to the

claimants is not being interfered with.

7. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

J.R. MIDHA, J

APRIL 15, 2009 sv