Delhi High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Miss Avneet Kaur & Anr on 27 July, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
38 to 44
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009
%
+ MAC.APP. 489/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
MISS AVNEET KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 491/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
GURDEEP KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 492/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
S.SURJEET SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 497/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
AMRIK SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
MAC.APP.Nos.489/2006, 491/2006, 492/2006, Page 1 of 5
497/2006, 498/2006, 501/2006 and 502/2006
+ MAC.APP. 498/2006
PEPSU ROAD CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
SURJEET KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 501/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
SURENDER KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 502/2006
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advs.
versus
DEVENDER KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Gaur, 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 appellant has challenged the common award dated
20th March, 2006 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby
497/2006, 498/2006, 501/2006 and 502/2006
seven connected claim petitions arising out of the same
accident were allowed.
2. The accident dated 29th January, 1999 resulted in the
injuries to passengers of Tata Sumo out of which one
claimant expired later on. The Tata Sumo was going from
Rajpura to Ambala side on the left side of the G.T. Road. It is
a double road but the right side of the road was closed for
some reason. The offending bus was coming from Ambala
side and was going towards Rajpura side but since the right
side of the road was closed, the bus came on the wrong side
and there was a head on collision between the bus and the
Tata Sumo.
3. The learned Tribunal has held the bus to be rash and
negligent and has passed the award against the appellant
which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the
finding of rash and negligent driving of the bus and submits
that the driver of Tata Sumo was negligent. Without
prejudice it is submitted that it is a case of composite
negligence of both the vehicles.
5. The site plan, Ex.PW1/A, and the photographs,
Ex.PW1/1, clearly show that the Tata Sumo was on the
correct side of the road and the bus came on the wrong side.
Even if the right side of the road was closed, the driver of the
bus was required to exercise due care and caution by putting
on the head lights and by giving indication to the traffic
497/2006, 498/2006, 501/2006 and 502/2006
coming from the opposite direction. There is no evidence
that the driver of the bus has put on the head lights or had
given any other indication in this case. The photographs -
Ex.PW1/1 show the bus to be in the middle of the road which
also points out to the negligence of the bus. Admittedly, the
police has registered the case of rash and negligent driving
against the driver of the bus. In these circumstances, there
is no infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal as to the
rash and negligent driving of the appellant's bus. The finding
of the learned Tribunal with respect to the rash and negligent
driving is upheld.
6. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just,
fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, all the seven appeals as well
as all the pending applications are dismissed.
8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount
along with interest with the learned Tribunal in terms of the
order dated 29th May, 2006 out of which 75% of the award
amount has been released to the claimants and the
remaining 25% of the award amount is kept in fixed deposit.
9. Since the appeals have been dismissed, the learned
Tribunal is directed to release the balance 25% of the award
amount along with up to date interest to the claimants in
terms of the award within a period of two weeks.
10. After the satisfaction of the entire award, both the
parties shall file an affidavit of satisfaction of the award
497/2006, 498/2006, 501/2006 and 502/2006
whereupon the Registry shall release the statutory amount
back to the appellant.
11. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for both the parties under signatures of Court Master.
12. List for compliance on 28th August, 2009.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JULY 27, 2009
mk
497/2006, 498/2006, 501/2006 and 502/2006
