Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Devraj Singh on 31 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31st August, 2012
+ MAC APP. 961/2012
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
versus
DEVRAJ SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.15143/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Application stands disposed of.
MAC APP. 961/2012
1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.05.2012 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of `1,09,000/- was awarded in favour of the First
Respondent for having suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 09.04.2011.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident
was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.UP-16P-
9568 driven by its driver Surender Singh (Respondent No.1 before the
Claims Tribunal). It was found that Devraj Singh (First Respondent
herein) suffered head injury with RT temporal EDH. He (Respondent
No.1) remained admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS Hospital,
New Delhi from 09.04.2011 to 26.04.2011. He then remained admitted
in Saraswati Hospital and Research Institute at Hatras, U.P. The Claims
Tribunal observed that the First Respondent was working as Head
Constable with U.P. police at a monthly salary of `18,000/-. Considering
the nature of injuries, the compensation of `1,09,000/- was awarded
which is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Compensation for Medical Expenses `9,000/-
2. Compensation for Conveyance and Special ` 25,000/-
Diet Charges
3. Compensation for Loss of Income/Leave ` 25,000/-
4. Compensation for Pain, Suffering and Loss ` 50,000/-
of Amenities of Life
5. Loss of Love & Affection ` 1,50,000/-
Total ` 1,09,000/-
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the First
Respondent was responsible for the accident as he was waiting for the bus
not at the authorized bus stop but under the flyover.
4. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as
under:-
"6. Since the present petition is under Section 166 & 140 of MV
Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the
respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at
the time of accident. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the statement of PW1, Sh. Devraj, who is
the petitioner himself and has deposed that on 09.04.2011, he
alongwith his brother was going from Sarai Kale Khan to Mathura
and they were waiting for a bus near Sarai Kale Khan Bus Depot
under the flyover when suddenly the offending vehicle i.e. bus
bearing no.UP-16-P-9568 driven by its driver in a very rash and
negligent took „U‟ turn under the flyover without following the
traffic rules and hit the petitioner from back side. As a result of
the impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained
grievous injuries. PW1, Sh Devraj was cross-examined by the Ld
counsels for the respondents and he stated that he had come to
Delhi on 08.04.2011 from Mathura, UP in connection matrimonial
alliance of his daughter and he alongwith his brother-in-law, Sh.
Gajender Singh were waiting for bus near Kale Khan Bus Stop and
the offending vehicle had hit him from behind. He had denied the
suggestion that he was crossing the road at the time of accident
without following the traffic rules and volunteered to say that there
were buses standing at the place of accident and a bus stop was
situated at a distance of about 100/200 meters from the place of
accident. The respondent no.1, Sh. Surender Singh has got himself
examined as RW1 and has deposed that on the date of accident he
was driving the bus at a normal speed and at Sarai Kale Khan
Flyover a private vehicle suddenly took a wrong turn and to
control the bus he applied emergency brake and in the process the
petitioner was hurt as he was standing in the middle of the road in
negligent manner and that the petitioner sustained injuries due to
his own fault. However, during his cross-examination on
09.05.2012, RW1, Sh. Surender Singh has admitted that he was
arrested in FIR No.124/11, PS Sun Light Colony and had also
obtained bail in the said case. He further admitted that he had not
noted down the registration number of the vehicle which had taken
a wrong turn before the accident and due to which he had applied
emergency brakes. The respondent no.1/driver has not filed any
complaint before any authority regarding his arrest in FIR
No.124/11, PS Sun Light Colony. Accordingly, I do not find the
testimony of R1W1 worthy of any credence. On the other hand the
statement of PW1, Sh Devraj S/o Sh. Vijay Bahadur stands
corroborated by the certified copy of the Final Report U/s. 173
Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/G, filed by the police in respect of this accident
(FIR No.124/11, PS Sun Light Colony) against the respondent
no.1, driver of the offending vehicle for his trial of offences u/s.
279/337 IPC."
5. The Claims Tribunal relied on the first Respondent's testimony as the
same was corroborated by the registration of a criminal case under
Section 279/337 IPC against the driver of the Appellant's bus. I do not
find any infirmity on the finding of negligence. It has to be borne in mind
that in a Petition under Section 166 of the Act, negligence is required to
be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
6. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, while holding that in a petition for award of
compensation, the negligence has to be proved on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability, in para 15, it was observed as under:-
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a
holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind
that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a
particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants.
The claimants were merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the
said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration
the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
7. The observations of the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi (supra) were
referred to with approval in a later judgment in Parmeshwari Devi v.
Amir Chand and Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 635.
8. Keeping in view that the First Respondent suffered head injury and
remained admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS Hospital, New
Delhi for a period of 17 days and thereafter in Saraswati Hospital and
Research Institute at Hatras, U.P., the overall compensation of
`1,09,000/- including a sum of `25,000/- towards the loss of leave is just
and reasonable.
9. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
10. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant.
11. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2012
vk
