Delhi Transport Corporation vs Vivek Puri
2016 Latest Caselaw 1349 Del

$~4

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: 19th February, 2016
+     CM(M) 595/2015 & CM No.11351/2015
      DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Av.

                         versus

      VIVEK PURI                                         ..... Respondents
                         Through:      Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                         JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is second round of proceedings before this Court arising out of the same claim case presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the respondent. The petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) is aggrieved with orders dated 16.09.2014 and 21.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal in the course of proceedings arising out of execution case no. 43/2013 taken out by the respondent for the reason, it having paid 50% of the compensation awarded, has been called upon to pay the balance as well, with reference to certain observations of this Court in (para 4 of) the judgment dated 03.09.2012 in FAO NO.161/2000.

2. The respondent had instituted a claim case on 30.05.1985 before the Tribunal which was registered as suit No.86. The claim case was decided by judgment dated 17.12.1999 by the Tribunal awarding compensation in the sum of ₹4,71,240/- with interest at 12% per annum in favour of the respondent holding the drivers and owners of three vehicles, all buses, bearing registration No.DEP 4579, DLP 82 and DEP 8757 to be jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal, however, found contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the said vehicles and, therefore, apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50% on the part of DTC and the balance 50% to be recoverable from the owner and driver of bus No. DEP 4579. It may be added that DEP 4579 was a private bus while the other buses were of DTC.

3. The claimant (the respondent) brought FAO 161/2000 which was pressed with the restricted prayer that since the liability of tort feasors were joint and several, he should have been granted the right to recover the compensation from any of the tort feasors. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 03.09.2012 noted that 50% of the compensation had already been paid by DTC in discharge of its liability in terms of judgment of the Tribunal. In this view, the Court made the following observations and directions in (para 4 of) the judgment dated 03.09.2012

"4. In the circumstances, 50% of the compensation has already been received which was the liability of the respondent/DTC as per impugned judgment. It is, therefore, directed that rest 50% shall be recovered from any of the tortfeasors. The tortfeasor who would pay more than his share shall be entitled to eventually recover the same from the other tortfeasor."

4. It appears that the claimant (respondent), on the strength of the above directions, pressed for recovery of the balance 50% against the DTC. This contention has been upheld by the tribunal through the impugned orders.

5. Having heard both sides, it is found that the import of directions in (para 4 of) the judgment dated 03.09.2012 of this Court has not been properly understood. The liberty to recover the balance 50% has been granted as against "any of the tort-feasors". DTC, the petitioner, by no stretch of argument or imagination can be included in the meaning of the expression "tort-feasor". It was impleaded as a party respondent in the proceedings before the Tribunal on account of its vicarious liability, in that it is the owner of two of the buses involved and the employer of the drivers who were at the wheels of the said buses at the time of the accident.

6. Thus, the directions in the aforementioned order of this Court do not permit any further recovery from DTC. The impugned orders of the Tribunal in that direction are, therefore, unjustified and consequently set aside.

7. Needless to add, the claimant (respondent) is at liberty to enforce the aforesaid order against the tort-feasors.

8. The petition is disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 19, 2016 VLD