U.P. State Road Transport Corp. vs Anita Sharma
2011 Latest Caselaw 6285 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Decided on: 21st December, 2011
+       MAC APP. 1154/2011

        U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. ...... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.

                                  Versus
        ANITA SHARMA               ..... Respondent
                 Through: Nemo.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
                       JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.23300/2011 (exemption) in MAC APP. 1154/2011 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.23301/2011 (delay) in MAC APP. 1154/2011

1. There is a delay of thirty one days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

The delay of thirty one days in filing the appeal is condoned MAC APP. 1154/2011 and CM APPL.23299/2011 (stay)

3. Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation impugns the award of compensation of ` 94,070/- to the Respondent Anita Sharma. Respondent Anita Sharma suffered fracture right of ribs, bilateral surgical emphysema with right pneumoth, in accident dated 28.03.2010. She remained admitted in Kailash Healthcare Ltd. for the period from 28.03.2010 to 15.04.2010.

The Tribunal awarded the compensation, which is tabulated hereunder:-

"1. Compensation towards pain and sufferings = ` 45,000/-

2. Loss of earning for 3 months @ ` 5,278/- per month = ` 15,834/-.

3. Medical Bills = ` 23,236/-

4. Compensation towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) = ` 10,000/-

Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to ` 94,070/- which shall be the just compensation to petitioner."

4. It is averred by the learned counsel for the Appellant that negligence on the part of the Appellant's driver was not established. There was no proof that the Respondent was working and no voucher was filed in respect of the medical bills for ` 23,236/-. It is thus, stated that the compensation awarded is excessive.

5. I have perused the record. The Claimants examined PW-1 Seema Sharma and PW-2 Anita Sharma (Respondent herein) who deposed that bus number UP-16P-9324 came at a very high speed and hit the car in which they were travelling. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the bus bearing number UP-16P-9324. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of two witnesses coupled with the record of the criminal case, held negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was established. The driver of the bus was not produced by

the Appellant. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal.

6. As regard the amount of compensation, it was claimed that Respondent was giving tuition and was earning ` 7,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal declined to believe this and took the minimum wages while awarding compensation for loss of earning for a period of three months during which the Respondent was under treatment. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is proper and cannot be disturbed.

7. The Tribunal further awarded ` 10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet which was justified considering the period of hospitalization and the injuries suffered by Respondent. The award of compensation of ` 45,000/- towards pain and suffering was a subjective assessment made by the Tribunal, which again in view of the period of hospitalization cannot be said to be excessive.

8. The Appeal is frivolous; the same is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Lawyers' Welfare fund.

9. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 21, 2011/vk