Ramesh Chander Vij & Anr. vs Sushma Bhasin & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 336 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +    MAC.APP.No.63/2005

                               Date of Decision: 21st January, 2010
%

      RAMESH CHANDER VIJ & ANR.     ..... Appellants
                  Through : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Adv.

                     versus

      SUSHMA BHASIN & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                   Through : Mr. R.S. Reen, Adv. for
                             R-1 and 2.
                             Mr. Ataul Haque, Adv. for
                             DTC.

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 award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 18th February, 1987 resulted in the

death of B.M. Bhasin. The deceased was survived by his

widow and son who filed the claim petition before the Claims

Tribunal.

3. The deceased was driving two-wheeler scooter bearing

No.DLQ-6699 when he was hit by car bearing No.DEC-4836.

The deceased fell down from the scooter and was crushed

under the wheel of offending car No.DEC-4836.

4. The deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the

accident and was self-employed earning Rs.2,500/- per

month. The learned Tribunal computed the compensation of

Rs. 3,80,000/- payable to the claimants.

5. Appellant No.1 is the driver and appellant No.2 is the

owner of car bearing No.DEC-4836.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged at the

time of hearing of the appeal that the accident in question

was not caused by the appellant's car bearing No.DEC-4836.

In the alternative, it is submitted that the DTC bus bearing

No.DEP-8624 hit the car which in turn hit the scooter of the

deceased.

7. The accident in question was witnessed by Charanjit

Singh who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter driven by

the deceased at the time of the accident. Charanjit Singh

also fell down from the scooter and he reported the matter to

the Police and also appeared before the Claims Tribunal as a

witness. The statement of Charanjit Singh was recorded as

PW-1 and he deposed before the Claims Tribunal that the

scooter of the deceased was hit by car No.DEC-4836 from

behind and simultaneously, the DTC bus bearing No.DEP-

8624 also hit the car. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the

appellants.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the

FIR registered by Charanjit Singh does not contain the

vehicle number of the car which caused the accident and the

mechanical inspection report does not show any damage on

the car of the appellants.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submit

that appellant No.1 was convicted by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal case against which

appellant No.1 filed the appeal before the learned Sessions

Judge which was allowed and appellant No.1 was discharged

on the ground that the car hit the scooter after being hit by

the bus.

10. From the statement of eye-witness - PW-1 and the

judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is of the

view that the accident occurred due to the composite

negligence of the appellant's car and the DTC bus and the

composite negligence of both of them is held to be 50%.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the

appellant's car was not involved in the accident. This plea is

rejected in view of the clear statement of eye-witness - PW-1

who stated categorically that the appellant's car has caused

the accident. The appellant has also been indicted by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the learned

Sessions Judge, but has been given benefit of doubt because

the appellant's car was hit by the DTC bus. The appellant's

negligence is made out because if the appellant had been

careful, the appellant could have avoided the accident even

after being hit by the DTC bus.

12. There is no challenge to the quantum of compensation

computed by the Claims Tribunal. No other ground is

agitated before this Court.

13. The appeal is partially allowed and the award of

Rs.3,80,000/- is upheld but the liability of the appellants is

reduced to 50% of the award amount and the remaining 50%

of the award amount is payable by DTC.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant has handed over

a calculation sheet along with a certificate of Punjab National

Bank which has been verified by the Accounts Officer of this

Court to be correct. As per the certificate of Punjab National

Bank, a sum of Rs.5,01,552/- has been paid to the claimants.

The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,20,600/-. The

counsel for the appellant further submits that a sum of

Rs.11,076/- has been deducted by Punjab National Bank

towards TDS. The fixed deposit receipts were in the name of

the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the claimants cannot get

the benefit of the TDS deducted. However, considering that

the appellant has paid the amount, the TDS amount which

has been lost in the process shall be borne equally by both

the parties, the balance liability of the appellant is held to be

Rs.12,500/-.

15. There is a statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- by the

appellant filed along with this appeal.

16. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to

release a sum of Rs.12,500/- out of the statutory amount to

the appellant and remaining Rs.12,500/- to

claimant/respondent No.1 through counsel within four weeks.

With the release of Rs.12,500/- to claimant/respondent No.1,

this judgment shall stand satisfied so far as the appellants

are concerned.

17. DTC is directed to deposit 50% of the award amount

along with up to date interest with UCO Bank A/c Sushma

Bhasin, Delhi High Court Branch through Mr. M.M. Tandon,

Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street,

New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days.

18. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank is

directed to release 10% of the amount to

claimant/respondent No.1 and 10% to claimant/respondent

No.2 by transferring the same to their Saving Bank Account.

The remaining amount be kept in fixed deposit in the

following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.1 for a period of six months.

(ii) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.2 for a period of six months.

(iii) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.1 for a period of one year.

(iv) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.2 for a period of one year.

(v) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.1 for a period of one and a half

years.

(vi) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.2 for a period of one and a half

years.

(vii) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.1 for a period of two years.

(viii) Fixed deposit of 10% of the amount in the name

of respondent No.2 for a period of two years.

19. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be

paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings

Account of respondents No.1 and 2.

20. Withdrawal from the aforesaid accounts shall be

permitted to respondents No.1 and 2 after due verification

and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to respondents

No.1 and 2 to facilitate identity.

21. No cheque book be issued to respondents No.1 and 2

without the permission of this Court.

22. The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by

the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass

Book shall be given to respondents No.1 and 2 along with the

photocopy of the FDRs.

23. The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed

over to the appellants on the expiry of the period of the

FDRs.

24. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the

said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this

Court.

25. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in

this Court.

26. On the request of respondents No.1 and 2, the Bank

shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of

UCO Bank according to the convenience of respondents No.1

and 2.

27. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall furnish all the relevant

documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed

Deposit Account to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team,

UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

28. List for reporting compliance on 12th March, 2010.

29. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the

parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

JANUARY 21, 2010 aj