Delhi High Court
D.T.C. & Anr. vs Ram Chander Mahto & Ors. on 17 July, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
15
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.420/2005
Date of Decision: 17th July, 2009
%
D.T.C. & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Ataul Haque, Adv.
versus
RAM CHANDER MAHTO & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjeet K. Singh, Adv.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the
learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- has
been awarded to the claimants.
2. The accident dated 30th January, 2001 resulted in the
death of Anil Prasad Mahto. The deceased was survived by
his widow, two daughters and parents who filed the claim
petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was crossing the road near SDM Office
Punjabi Bagh when a DTC Bus bearing No.DL-1P-9952 driven
by appellant No.2 hit the deceased and fled away from the
spot. FIR No.80/2001 under Sections 279/304A IPC was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The
FIR, MLC and post-mortem report were proved as Ex.PW4/A,
Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B.
4. The only ground of challenge raised by learned counsel
for the appellants at the time of hearing of this appeal is that
the bus in question was not involved in the accident and,
therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any
compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased.
5. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased
suffered fatal injuries in the accident caused by the rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1P-9952
by appellant No.2. The reasons for the above finding are
given in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned award which are
reproduced hereunder:-
"8. In addition to it, the petitioners placed on
record certified copies of the challan filed against
R1 in the criminal Court, which includes charge-
sheet, FIR, mechanical Inspection report and
superdarinama of vehicle no. DL-1P-9952, site
plan, recovery of driving licence of Azad Singh.
R1, in his deposition as RW1 admitted that he
was driver on bus no.DL-1P-9952 on 30.1.2001
and was plying on route no.929 from Punjabi
Bagh to Mubarak Pur but denied that any
accident took place on 30.1.2001. However, he
was informed of this accident on 31.1.2001 in
the late evening hours that the bus was involved
in the accident on 30.1.2001. During cross-
examination, he admitted that he was going at
about 8.00 p.m from Punjabi Bagh to Mubarak
Pur and criminal case was pending against him
but he denied that any accident took place with
his bus or he fled away from the spot. The
cumulative effect of the evidence brought by the
petitioners, it becomes clear that Anil Prasad
Mahto died of the road accident dated
30.1.2001. On the other hand, onus was on
respondents to prove that their bus was not
involved in the accident. Respondents could
have proved this fact by producing the accident
register kept at respective depots through which
entry and exit of bus is also regulated. It is
further clarified a register is maintained by
respondent Delhi Transport Corporation for the
accidents taking place in the National Capital
Region at their respective depots. This register
was not brought on record and was withheld by
R2. With the help of this register, it could have
been brought on record that whether bus no. DL-
1P-9952 was involved in the accident or not. In
the absence of any corroboration, I discard the
testimony of R1.
9. On the other hand, this Tribunal can always
take cognizance of charge-sheet filed by police
against driver of the offending vehicle or report
of an Officer-in-charge of a police station U/S
158(6), Motor Vehicles Act of an accident to the
Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. The
petitioners placed on record certified copies of
the challan filed in the Criminal Court which
shows that R1 was charge-sheeted by P.S.
Nangloi in FIR no.80/2001 U/S 279/304-A IPC, so
an adverse inference is drawn against R1 in this
case. Reliance is placed on Judgment of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in N.K.V. BROS. (P) LTD. VS. M.
KARUMAI AMMAL AND OTHERS AIR 1980 SC
1354. In this case, it is held that the
requirement of culpable rashness U/S 304-A IPC
is more drastic than negligence sufficient under
the Law of Torts to create liability. Accidents
Claims Tribunals must take special care to see
that innocent victims do not suffer and driver
and owner do not escape liability merely because
of some doubt here or some obscurity there :
culpability must be inferred from the
circumstance where it is fairly reasonable. The
Court should not succumb to niceties
technicalities and mystic maybes. Reliance is
also placed on the Judgment of BASANT KAUR
AND OTHERS VS. CHHATAR PAL, 2003 ACJ 369, in
which it was held:
"That apart, a criminal case under Section
304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been
registered against the driver of truck
no.MBN1637. This fact is relevant under
Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, under which after the accident, the
Station House Officer has to inform the
Claims Tribunal about taking place of
accident. This case involves the driver of
truck No.MBN 1637. These facts are
enough to record the finding that the truck
No.MBN 1637 was responsible for
committing accident and not truck No.MKO
9729.""
6. I agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal. There
is sufficient evidence to hold that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of DTC bus bearing No.DL-
1P-9952 by appellant No.2 resulting in death of Anil Prasad
Mahto. There is no challenge to the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount
with the learned Tribunal in terms of the order dated 17th
May, 2005 passed by this Court out of which 50% of the
award amount has been released to the claimants. The
remaining 50% of the award amount along with interest
thereon is lying with the learned Tribunal in the form of
cheques which have not been presented for encashment.
Appellant No.1 is directed to deposit fresh cheques along
with interest up to the date of deposit with the learned
Tribunal within 30 days.
9. Upon depositing the fresh cheques along with interest
up to the date of deposit, the learned Tribunal shall disburse
the same to the claimants in terms of the award and shall
also return the expired cheques back to appellant No.1.
10. Upon satisfaction of the entire award, appellant No.1
shall submit the proof of satisfaction with this Court
whereupon the order with respect to the refund of statutory
amount shall be passed.
11. Copy of this order be given „Dasti‟ to learned counsel
for the parties under the signature of Court Master. Copy of
this order be also sent to the learned Tribunal for
compliance.
12. The LCR be returned back.
13. List for passing of the appropriate order for release of
the statutory amount to appellant No.1 on 7th September,
2009.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JULY 17, 2009
aj
