Delhi High Court
Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C. vs Mufid Alam & Anr. on 17 August, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 9/2017
CHIEF MANAGER, R.S.R.T.C. ..... Appellant
Through: Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
MUFID ALAM & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate for R-1
along with R-1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 13.06.2012, at about 3:30 p.m., a motor vehicular accident is
stated to have occurred in which the first respondent (the claimant)
driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-8SAA-7631
(motorcycle) was hit by bus bearing registration No.RJ-24PA-2058
(the bus) of the appellant, driven by its employee (second respondent),
at the downward slope of Lajpat Nagar flyover. The claimant was
accompanied at that time by his sister Firdosh Praveen (R1W1). It
appears that information about the accident had reached the police
through police control room (PCR), it resulting in DD Nos.61-B and
72-B being logged at about 3:49 p.m. and 4:57 p.m. respectively in
Police Station Lajpat Nagar. The claimant had been taken by his sister
to Vimhans Hospital, which referred him to Trauma Centre of All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where MLC No. 314230
was recorded at 4:31 p.m. on 13.06.2012 stating history to be road
traffic accident involving collision between the motorcycle and the
bus, it resulting in the claimant suffering external injuries including
crush injury on the left foot with muscle and bone being exposed. The
police did not register a case (First Information Report) closing the
matter with DD No.28-A logged at 8:45 p.m. on 13.06.2012 noting
that the injuries were minor and the matter had been amicably settled,
this on the basis of statement of Firdosh Praveen.
2. The injuries suffered by the claimant, however, turned down to
be serious and, in the protracted medical treatment that he had to
undergo, his left lower limb had to suffer amputation rendering him
disabled, his disability having been certified on 12.12.2014 by a board
of doctors of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital to be to the
extent of 49%.
3. On his complaint, under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), submitted on 22.02.2013, under directions
of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the SHO Police Station Lajpat
Nagar eventually registered FIR No.157/2013 on 31.05.2013. The
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on the basis of evidence gathered
during investigation that followed was submitted before the tribunal
on 24.01.2014. The claimant pressed the claim for compensation on
the basis of DAR. The tribunal held inquiry and, upon its conclusion,
by judgment dated 16.09.2016, awarded compensation in the total sum
of Rs.7,96,700/- fastening the liability on the appellant to pay the same
with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum.
4. The appeal raises grievances that the matter had been amicably
settled wherein the second respondent (driver of the bus) had paid
Rs.7,000 as compensation on the spot and that though there was no
collision between the two vehicles and that there was no occasion for
the accident to have occurred due to negligence on the part of bus
driver, a false case has been propped up after long gap, the story set
out being an afterthought. During the course of submissions in this
regard, the counsel for the appellant, also stated that no opportunity
was given to the appellant or its employee (driver), to put across their
side of the story.
5. The arguments to above effect do not impress this court.
Firdosh Praveen, the sister of the claimant had no authorization from
him to settle the matter by taking the paltry sum of Rs.7,000/-. It is
not correct on the part of the appellant to argue that the injuries were
minor. The MLC shows the injuries were quite serious, the left lower
limb having been crushed, the damage being such as had resulted in
muscle and bones being exposed. The state of the claimant at that
stage was not such where he could have visualized the consequences
that were to follow. Despite medical treatment, the damage could not
be contained and he had to undergo partial amputation of the left
lower limb which renders it to be not a case that could be settled in the
manner stated.
6. It is indeed unfortunate that the police did not rise to the
occasion or discharge its responsibilities in the way expected to be
performed at the crucial stage. A case of this nature could not have
been put under the carpet simply on the basis of a DD entry recorded
by the police official noting that the matter had been compromised.
The least that the police official was expected to do was to meet the
injured person, see his medical condition, ascertain opinion from the
medical authorities under whom he was being treated and also record
his version. Merely because the police official did not perform his
duty does not mean that the claimant is to be disbelieved. He did what
was possible for him to do so. He approached, when he was in a fit
condition to do so, the court of Metropolitan Magistrate with the
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate
directions. It is the said directions which eventually forced the hand
of the police, it resulting in the FIR being registered and the
investigation being taken up.
7. The argument raised by the counsel for the claimant that there
was no opportunity given by the tribunal for the version of the driver
of the bus to be brought on record is against the proceedings on the
file of the tribunal. The claimant had led his evidence concluding it on
23.11.2015. The case had remained at the stage of respondents'
evidence till 14.09.2016. The counsel representing the appellant and
the driver submitted on that date that no further evidence was to be
adduced beyond the three witnesses who had been examined, they not
including the driver. Thus, the appellant and its employee (the driver)
consciously took a decision not to have the version of the driver of the
bus to be brought on record. This must result in adverse inference
being drawn against them.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the contentions of the appellant about
there being no collision between the two vehicle or there being no
negligence on the part of the bus driver or that the matter could not
have been taken up further after the settlement with the sister of the
claimant must be rejected.
9. No other point was pressed at the hearing.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is found without substance and
is dismissed.
11. The appellant has deposited the awarded amount with interest
with the tribunal in terms of the order dated 03.03.2017. The same
shall now be released to the claimant in terms of the impugned award.
12. The statutory amount may be refunded to the appellant.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 17, 2017
vk
