Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Gaurav Agarwal on 27 May, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th May, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 1169/2013
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate
with Mr. Shadab Khan,
Advocate
versus
GAURAV AGARWAL
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate
with Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims
Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.3,72,187/- was awarded
in favour of the Respondent for having suffered grievous
injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on
16.03.2008.
2. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. It is urged
by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the accident
occurred on account of sole negligence of the Respondent. In
any case, there was at least contributory negligence on the part
of Respondent. It is also stated that the compensation awarded
is exorbitant and excessive.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent
argues that negligence on the part of the Appellant's driver
(Gajender Singh) was sufficiently established. The
compensation awarded is also just and reasonable.
NEGLIGENCE:
4. I have the Trial Court record before me. The learned counsel
for the Appellant contends that the Respondent was overtaking
another vehicle and in that process, he struck against the
Appellant's bus bearing no.UP-11-T-0373 and thus, there was
no negligence on the part of the Appellant's driver. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel for the Appellant refers to
the Affidavit Ex.R1W1/1 of its driver Gajender Singh.
5. I have perused the record. Of course, bus driver Gajender Singh
has testified in the Affidavit that the accident occurred as the
driver of Wagon-R car bearing no.UP-14-W-9081 was driving
the vehicle at a high and uncontrollable speed and while
overtaking another vehicle, he hit the front side of the Wagon-R
with the bus. But the record speaks to the contrary. The
testimony of the Respondent(claimant) is corroborated by the
site plan prepared by the police in case FIR No.23/2008
registered against the Appellant's driver which shows that the
Appellant's bus had travelled to the wrong side of the road and
caused the accident. So much so that testimony of PW-1 as to
the manner of the accident i.e. the Appellant's bus came at a
fast speed in a rash and negligent manner while hitting another
vehicle, was not even challenged in the cross-examination. Only
a vague suggestion was given that the accident was caused on
account of Respondent no.1's own negligence. On analysing
the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, it is amply clear that it was
Gajender Singh, the Appellant's driver, who was responsible for
causing the accident. The finding on negligence reached by the
Claims Tribunal is well reasoned and logical. The same is
accordingly affirmed.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
award of compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.10,899/- towards attendant charges and
Rs.39,250/- towards future medical expenses is on the higher
side.
7. Immediately after the accident, the Respondent was removed to
Yashlok Nursing Home, Roorkee. After first aid, he was
referred to Delhi and was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
on 17.03.2008. He was discharged from the hospital on
31.03.2008. Details of the fracture and the injuries suffered is
referred to in para 14 of the impugned judgment, which is
extracted hereunder:
"14. I have gone through the material on record.
The treatment record dated 16.03.2011 issued by
Yashlok Hospital shows that the petitioner suffered
fracture left pelvic. The CT report dated 17.3.2008,
issued by New Delhi Scan Research Institute shows
that petitioner suffered posterior dislocation of the
right hip joint, fracture of right femoral head with
displaced bony fragment, communited fracture
involving right posterior acetabulum rim with
displaced bony fragments. The investigation
summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital shows that the
petitioner was admitted on 17.3.2008 and was
discharged on 31.3.2008....."
8. From the nature of injuries suffered, the period of admission in
the hospital and the period of confinement at home, the award
of compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs.10,899/- towards attendant charges for three months cannot
be faulted.
9. With regard to medical expenses, a certificate for removal of
plate from the left humerus was placed on record by the
Respondent and the same was dealt with by the Claims
Tribunal and in para 16 of the impugned judgment it was held
as under:
"16.....The petitioner has also placed on record a
certificate issued by Doctor O.N. Nagi, Director Joint
Replacement Centre, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New
Delhi to the effect that petitioner required removal of
the plate from left humerus and the estimated cost
shown to be 39,250/-....."
10. Thus, the award of Rs.39,250/- towards future treatment cannot
be faulted.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is noted that the appeal is
frivolous. The same is accordingly dismissed with cost of
Rs.50,000/-. Rs.25,000/- already deposited by the Appellant as
statutory amount along with interest shall be paid to the
Respondent and shall be treated part of the cost.
12. By an order dated 17.12.2013, execution of the award was
stayed subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount and 80%
of the amount was ordered to be released to the Respondent in
terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal. Balance
amount shall be released in favour of the Respondent in terms
of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal forthwith.
13. The balance cost shall be paid to Respondent no.1 within six
weeks.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2015
pst
