Rajasthan Roadways vs Harpal Singh & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5103 Del

$~R-39
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 29th August, 2012

+        MAC. APP. No.502/2004

         RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS                        ..... Appellant
                     Through:           Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                        Versus

         HARPAL SINGH & ANR.                       ..... Respondents
                      Through:          Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate for the
                                        Respondent No.1.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Rajasthan Roadways impugns a judgment dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `41,336/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18.02.2001.

2. A Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(the Act) by the First Respondent was converted to one under Section 166 of the Act by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation is payable only in case of death and permanent disablement. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the First Respondent suffered injury while travelling

in Rajasthan Roadways bus No.RJ-13-P-1402 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner.

3. The Appellant disputes the finding on negligence on the ground that in the initial Claim Petition preferred by the First Respondent, he sought to set up a case that he was travelling in a truck which met with an accident with the Appellant's bus No.RJ-13-P-1402.

4. I have perused the Trial Court record. It is true that initially in the Claim Petition filed in the year 2001, it was stated that the First Respondent was travelling in a truck No. HR-14-4393. The Claim Petition was later on amended (in the year 2004) and it was stated that the First Respondent was travelling in the offending bus. The First Respondent even produced a bus ticket Ex.P-35 as proof of his travelling in the Rajasthan Roadways bus. It was nowhere the case of the Appellant that the passenger ticket Ex.P-35 was not a genuine document. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that the Appellant was travelling in the Rajasthan Roadways bus.

5. Coming to the finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal, the First Respondent's testimony as PW1 that "driver of the bus suddenly turned the bus towards right without caring for the truck coming from the opposite direction. Consequently, the bus hit the truck. As a result of accident, my ankle dislocated and I also suffered fracture of leg besides other injuries. Other passengers also suffered injuries," was not challenged in cross-examination except for a mere suggestion that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the truck driver. It was not suggested to PW1 as to how the accident occurred. The First Respondent's version is supported by the certified copy of the site plan filed before the Trial Court which shows that the Rajasthan Roadways

bus had gone to the wrong side of the road to collide against truck No. HR-14-4393. Culpable negligence on the part of the driver of the Rajasthan Roadways was amply proved.

6. Thus, the Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

7. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed in favour of the First Respondent in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

8. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Rajasthan Roadways.

9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2012 pst