Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Munni Devi & Ors. on 11 May, 2016
$~R-87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 609/2007
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv. for Ms.
Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
MUNNI DEVI & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Ramesh Chand suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 21.06.2002, statedly involving negligent driving of bus bearing
registration No.UP 75A 9591 (offending vehicle) of Uttar Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) and died in the consequence. The
first to sixth respondents (claimants), members of his family, instituted an
accident claim case (suit No.332/03) on 19.05.2003 seeking compensation
under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act)
impleading UPSRTC and Ram Shankar, driver of the offending vehicle and
employee of UPSRTC, as respondents alleging that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of the bus. The tribunal held inquiry and,
by judgment dated 19.05.2003, upheld the case of the claimants and
awarded Rs.12,65,400/- as compensation in their favour, which includes
Rs.12,20,400/- towards loss of dependency on the multiplier of 15,
calculating the age of the deceased at 40 years, his salary in the sum of
Rs.8,338/- having been improved by adding of future prospects of increase.
2. This appeal has been filed by UPSRTC assailing the impugned
judgment on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus, the accident having occurred primarily due to negligence
on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.DL 4CF 6217
(Tata Sumo) in which the deceased was travelling. The appellant also
submits that the tribunal wrongly added the element of future prospects of
increase and erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 with no proof having
been adduced as to the age of the deceased.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is found that the
contention on the issue of negligence is unmerited. The evidence on record
including copy of the site plan (Mark X) prepared by the investigating police
(which had registered a case relating to the accident in question) clearly
shows that the bus had tried to overtake another vehicle and in that process,
moving at fast speed, had come in the wrong lane resulting in head-on
collision against the Tata tempo coming from the opposite direction. The
very fact that bus was in wrong lane puts the onus on the driver who has
failed to give sufficient explanation.
4. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was employed as a
technician in Indian railways. He was in regular service and, thus, would
have been earning increments and progressive rise in salary and allowances.
In this view the addition of the element of future prospects cannot be
objected to. In absence of better evidence on record, the tribunal took the
age of deceased to be 40 years as mentioned in the post mortem report. The
appellant not having shown any other material, the finding of fact recorded
by the tribunal does not call for any interference.
5. Thus, the appeal is unmerited and liable to be dismissed.
6. By order dated 29.10.2007, the appellant had been directed to deposit
the entire awarded amount within the period specified and out of the same
50% was allowed to be released to the claimants. The Registrar General
shall now release the balance to the claimants in terms of the impugned
award.
7. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 11, 2016
VLD
