Delhi High Court
South Delhi Municipal ... vs Pooja & Ors on 8 December, 2014
$~A-42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 1109/2014
Date of decision:08.12.2014.
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Sanjeev Sagar and Mr.Aashish
Sharma, Advocates
versus
POOJA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 20121/2014(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 20123/2014 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 47 days' in filing
the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
MAC.APP. 1109/2014 and CM No. 20122/2014 (stay)
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated
11.07.2014.
2. The claim petition is filed by Smt. Pooja, the wife, Master Rahul, the son
and Smt. Bhawani Bai, the mother of the deceased.
3. The brief facts are that on 03.09.2009 Sh.Gyan Chand met with an
accident with the offending vehicle which belonged to the appellant. Gyan
Chand was at that time was travelling on a motorcycle.
4. Based on the evidence on record, a total compensation of Rs.10,88,848
was awarded to the claimants, the details of which are as follows:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,53,848/-
2. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
3. For funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
5. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.10,88,848/-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes two submissions to
impugn the award. He firstly submits that there is complete confusion about the
age of the deceased and that the Tribunal took the age to be 18 years old. He
submits that if the age was of 18 years, he could not be married with one child
as is being claimed by the claimants. Hence, he submits that deduction for
personal expenses would have been much higher. He secondly submits that the
appellant company have not been granted rights to recover the compensation
amount from the driver of the offending vehicle who is an employee of MCD,
i.e. respondent No.4.
6. As far as the contention regarding the age of the deceased is concerned,
PW-3 Sh. Suraj Pal in his cross-examination said that the deceased would be
around 20-21 years. The Tribunal in its award noticed that as per the Ration
card Ex.PW-1/3 year of birth is mentioned a 1991 and accordingly, it held that
the deceased was 18 years. The fact that the Ration Card and the statement of
PW-3 are at variance cannot be the basis to reach to a conclusion that the
deceased never married Smt. Pooja or that Rahul is not the son of the deceased.
This contention is completely without any basis and cannot be accepted.
Hence the award deducts personal expenses correctly.
7. On the issue of recovery rights of the appellant from the driver of the
offending vehicle the employer is liable for the tortuous act of the employees.
The appellant is the owner of the vehicle and has been held liable to pay.
8. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Minu B. Mehta and Anr. vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr.,
(1977) 2 SCC 441 relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"21. The liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in
a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on
the Law of Tort. Regarding the negligence of the servant the owner
is made liable on the basis of vicarious liability. Before the master
could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was
acting during the course of his employment and that he was
negligent. The number of the vehicles on the road increased
phenomenally leading to increase in road accidents. To remedy the
defect various steps were taken. In England the owners of the
vehicle voluntarily insured against the risk of injury to other road
users. With the increase of traffic and accidents it was found that in
a number of cases hardship was caused where the person inflicting
the injury was devoid of sufficient means to compensate the person
afflicted. In order to meet this contingency the Road Traffic Act,
1930, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930 and the
Road Traffic Act, 1934 were enacted in England. A system of
compulsory insurance was enacted by the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
Its object was to reduce the number of cases where judgment for
personal injuries obtained against a motorist was not met owing to
the lack of means of the defendant in the running-down action and
his failure to insure against such a liability. It is sufficient to state
that compulsory insurance was introduced to cover the liability
which the owner of the vehicle may incur."
9. Hence the appellant is liable for the acts of its employees, i.e. the driver
respondent No.4.There is no ground for the Tribunal to have granted recovery
rights against the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. Needless to add, nothing prevents MCD from taking any
proceedings as per the law if its rules so permit.
11. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
12. The appellant may comply with the award within six weeks from today.
13. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 08, 2014
rb
