Dtc & Ors vs Ved Parkash & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4803 Del

11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +         MAC.APP.No.191/2009

                                  Date of Decision: 24th November, 2009
%

      DTC & ORS                                    ..... Appellants
                           Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
                                     Mr. Nitiesh Kumar Singh,
                                     Advs.
                      versus

    VED PARKASH & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr. Naval Kishore Sharma,
                             Adv. for Mr. P.K. Sharma,
                             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.5,30,000/- has

been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 29th May, 2000 resulted in the

death of Dharmender. The deceased was survived by his

parents who filed the claim petition before the learned

Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the

accident and the learned Tribunal computed the

compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-.

4. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the

appellants at the time of hearing of this appeal is that the

deceased was contributory negligent for the accident and,

therefore, the award amount should be reduced on account

of contributory negligence. The deceased was sitting on the

pillion of Motorcycle bearing No.DL-4S-K 5757 which was

being driven by Harish. One more person Krishan Kumar was

also sitting on the pillion. Krishan Kumar appeared in the

witness box as PW-2 and deposed that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending DTC bus

by its driver. The FIR was registered against bus driver who

was prosecuted for the accident in question.

5. Though the driver of the bus appeared in the witness

box as R1W1 but the learned Tribunal did not find the

statement of the driver reliable.

6. There is no infirmity in the findings of the learned

Tribunal. The finding of rash and negligent driving by the

offending DTC bus by its driver is upheld.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount

with the learned Tribunal out of which Rs.2,09,000/- has been

released to respondent No.1 whereas the FDR for

Rs.2,09,000/- in the name of respondent No.2 is lying with

the learned Tribunal.

9. The learned Tribunal is directed to release the FDR to

respondent No.2.

10. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for both the parties under signature of Court Master.

11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- be refunded to the

appellant through counsel within four weeks.

J.R. MIDHA, J

NOVEMBER 24, 2009 mk