Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Manu Gupta
2012 Latest Caselaw 329 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 329 Del
Judgement Date : 17 January, 2012

Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Manu Gupta on 17 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Reserved on: 13th January, 2012
                                        Pronounced on: 17th January, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 490/2011

        U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. with
                               Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv.

                    versus

        MANU GUPTA                        ..... Respondent
                             Through:     Mr. Hari Shankar Adv. with
                                          Respondent in person.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) impugns the judgment dated 10.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), whereby a compensation of `1,39,900/- was awarded to the First Respondent in respect of the injuries suffered by him, in an accident which took place on 06.12.2004, involving UPSTRC bus number UP-25G-9504.

2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:-

(i) There was contributory negligence on the part of the First Respondent and the entire liability should not have been fastened on the Appellant.

(ii) The compensation of `65,000/- towards pain and suffering as well as the overall compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant.

3. In order to prove the negligence the Respondent filed his Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and entered the witness box as PW-1. He testified that on 06.12.2004 at about 9:00 AM, he was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle DL-7S-AM-3838 driven by Amarjeet Singh (PW-3). When they reached near Shahibabad bus depot, bus number UP-25G-9504 came from the backside and hit the motorcycle. PW-1 was not subjected to any cross- examination to challenge this part of the testimony.

4. PW-3 Amarjeet Singh corroborated PW-1 Manu Gupta and deposed that when they reached Sahibabad, U.P. a bus number UP-25G-9504 came from the back on the right side and hit the motorcycle. In cross-examination, a suggestion was given to this witness that no accident was caused by bus number UP- 25G-9504. The manner of the accident was thus not disputed.

5. In the written statement filed by the Appellant and its driver a mutually destructive plea was taken. It was stated that the accident was not caused by the said bus and at the same time, it was stated that there was no negligence or rashness on the part

of its driver. In any case, since PWs 2 and 3's testimonies have not been challenged on the point of rash and negligent driving the Tribunal's findings on this count cannot be faulted.

6. The Appellant suffered compound fracture tibia right side with fracture distal phalanx great toe left. The Respondent was immediately removed to Narinder Mohan Hospital, Mohan Nagar. He was discharged on request by MLC Ex.PW-1/3. The Respondent was then admitted in North Delhi Nursing Home on 06.12.2004. He was operated upon and a nail was fixed. He was discharged from the hospital on 13.12.2004. The Respondent was then admitted in Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute on 07.12.2004 for the removal of nail. He was discharged after the surgery on 08.12.2004.

7. The Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads which is extracted hereunder:-

1. Compensation towards pain and suffering ` 65,000/-

2. Expenses towards medical bills ` 47,890/-

3. Compensation towards conveyance and ` 15,000/- special diet (without bills)

4. Compensation for loss of earning for four ` 12,000/-

months @ ` 3,000/- per month

TOTAL ` 1,39,890/-

8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that award of compensation of ` 65,000/- towards pain and suffering is excessive.

9. Considering the nature of injuries, the duration of the treatment coupled with the fact that the Respondent had to undergo two surgeries, the Tribunal's assessment of award of compensation of `65,000/- for pain and suffering cannot be said to be dis- proportionate or excessive. The compensation awarded does not call for any interference.

10. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee is fixed at ` 5,500/-.

11. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

JANUARY 17, 2012 vk

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter