Delhi High Court
Smt.Shanti Devi vs Colleague Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 11 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th December, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 744/2005
SMT.SHANTI DEVI ...... Appellant
Through: Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate
versus
COLLEAGUE TRAVELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Smt.Shanti Devi who is the legal representative of the
deceased Hari Ram impugns a judgment dated 19.04.2005 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of ` 1,90,000/- was awarded in favour of the Appellant
for the death of her husband Hari Ram who died in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 22.11.1995.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of composite negligence of the driver
of the Bus No.DL-1P-8186 and the driver of the Maruti Van No.DL-
2C-1283 in which the deceased was travelling. The Claims Tribunal
thus held that there was negligence to the extent of 50% of both the
vehicles and directed the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation to the extent of 50% being the Insurer of the Bus
No.DL-1P-8186.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no
negligence whatsoever on the part of the driver of Maruti Van. Even
if, there was any, in case of composite negligence, the victim can seek
compensation from any or either of the tortfeasors.
4. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant. In this
case, PW-1 Shanti Devi and PW-2 Mukesh Kumar were the eye
witness of the accident. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar testified that on
22.11.1995 at 12.00 noon he along with his parents and family
members were travelling in a Maruti Van No.DL-2C-1283 from
Karkoda, District Sonepat, Haryana towards Dakshin Puri, Delhi.
When they reached Bawana, a Bus No.DL-1P-8186 came from the
side of Bawana at a very fast speed. It was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and hit against the right front portion of the Maruti
Van. The Maruti Van over turned resulting in injuries to the
occupants. He deposed that Maruti Van was being driven by one Ram
Pat. His father succumbed to the injuries. This part of the PW-2's
testimony remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. The driver of the
Bus did not come forward to contradict the manner of the accident or
to rebut the PW-2's testimony. Thus, the Claims Tribunal erred in
holding that the accident was caused on account of the contributory
negligence of both the vehicles. The driver of the Bus No.DL-1P-
8186 was fully to be blamed for unfortunate accident.
5. Moreover, if, there was composite negligence of the two drivers, the
deceased was merely occupants of the bus; the legal representatives
of the deceased can seek compensation from either of the tortfeasors.
6. I am fortified, in this view, by a report of the Supreme Court in T.O.
Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748.
7. The Appeal, therefore, has to be allowed.
8. The amount of compensation is not disputed by the Appellant. It is
ordered that the entire compensation shall be paid by the Respondent
Insurance Company along with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded
by the Claims Tribunal.
9. Fifty percent of the compensation amount has already been deposited
and paid to the Appellant. Rest of the compensation shall be payable
to the Appellant.
10. The Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance
compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six
weeks.
11. This accident took place 17 years back, 50% of the enhanced
compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of 2 years.
Rest shall be release on deposit. The Appellant would be entitled to
monthly interest on the amount held in fixed deposit.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 11, 2012/v
