Delhi High Court
Up State Road Transport ... vs Sh. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 6 February, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.271/2008
Date of reserve: 2nd January, 2009
% Date of decision: 6th February, 2009
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.S.K. Srivastava, Adv.
versus
SH. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
MAC.APP.No.271/2008
1. On 30th October, 2005 at about 7.00 PM, respondent
No.2 along with his mother, late Smt. Nirmala Devi and sister-
in-law were walking on the road in front of entrance gate of
ISBT, Anand Vihar for taking a bus for Khurja. UP Roadways
bus bearing No.UP-14-D-3915 was ready for departure for
Khurja. Late Smt. Nirmala Devi was in the process of getting
in the bus when the bus suddenly started, due to which
Nirmala Devi was crushed under the rear wheel of the bus.
She was taken to GTB Hospital where she died. The children
of the deceased, namely, respondents No.1 and 2 filed the
claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.7 lacs.
2. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of her
death. She was a housewife but was doing some stitching
work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned
Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of minimum
wages for unskilled person at Rs.3165.90 per month. After
deducting the 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8 and
added Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for
loss of estate. Total compensation of Rs.2,07,118/- was
awarded to respondents No.1 and 2.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned award firstly
on the ground that the driver of the bus was not negligent,
rather the deceased herself was negligent, secondly that the
amount awarded is excessive and thirdly, the rate of interest
of 7% is also excessive.
4. The learned Tribunal has given finding of negligence of
the driver on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 who deposed
that he was waiting along with his mother and sister-in-law for
bus when the offending bus came and was ready for
departure. PW-1 further deposed that when the mother was
in the process to board the bus, the driver drove the bus
negligently and recklessly, as a result of which the deceased
fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus. The
driver of the bus appeared in the witness box as R1W1 and
stated that the bus was standing on the red light and he
moved the bus when the light turned green and he heard the
noise from the rear gate side and stopped the bus and saw
that an old lady has got some injuries. However, in cross-
examination he admitted that there were rear view mirrors on
both sides of the bus. He further admitted that he had seen
the rear mirror and no passenger was boarding the bus. If he
had seen the rear mirror, he could have avoided the accident
and the mishap would not have happened. The learned
Tribunal gave a finding of the negligence by the bus driver
because the driver of the bus was apparently negligent. I
agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the driver
of the offending bus was rash and negligent.
5. I also agree with the computation of the compensation
by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the minimum wages
for unskilled person. There is no infirmity in the computation
of income. The interest at the rate of 7% per annum is also
fair and reasonable. Rather the Apex Court has awarded
interest at the rate of 7.5 in the recent case of Dharmpal &
Ors. vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp.- III 2008 ACC 1
SC.
6. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
CMs No.6179/2008 and 6180/2008
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing and refilling of this appeal is condoned.
CM No.6178/2008
Dismissed.
J.R. MIDHA, J
February 6, 2009
s.pal
