U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Babu Khan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3214 Del

$~25

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision:14th May, 2012

+        MAC. APP. No.449/2012

         U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                      ..... Appellant
                       Through: Ms.Garima Prashad with
                                Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates

                        Versus

         BABU KHAN & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                      Through:         Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Advocate
                                       for the Respondents No.1 & 2.


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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) impugns a judgment dated 03.02.2012 whereby an interim compensation of `50,000/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of Yunis Khan in an accident which occurred on 11.02.2010.

2. The Appellant's grievance is that the bus UP-25 AT 1209 was falsely implicated in the accident. The accident is alleged to have taken place at Anand Vihar ISBT and therefore, it was not possible for the driver to have escaped from the ISBT after the accident.

3. I have perused the Trial Court record and the record of the criminal case registered against Hulashi Ram driver of bus UP- 25 AT 1209. It is true that in the FIR, name of the witness and the number and description of the vehicle involved in the accident has not been mentioned. As per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed with learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Hulashi Ram was challaned under Section 279/304A IPC. The Police examined four eye witnesses during the course of the investigation. Statement of Gyan Chand, one of the witnesses, was recorded on the date of the accident i.e. 11.02.2010. He mentioned the number of the bus involved in the accident as UP-1209. He informed the IO that the bus belonged to UPSRTC. During investigation, it was found that the bus UP- 25-AT-1209 which was owned by UPSRTC was accepted to be present (on duty) at Anand Vihar bus stand at the time of the accident. The Appellant's driver refused to participate in the TIP on the ground that he had been seen by the witnesses at the spot. This was sufficient proof to be taken into consideration for passing an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The Appeal is groundless; the same is accordingly dismissed with cost of `5,000/- to be paid to the Respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Trial Court record be returned.

6. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be returned to the Appellant after paying a sum of `5,000/- to the Respondents No.1 and 2.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 14, 2012 pst