Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Prem Narayan on 6 July, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06th July, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9573/2015 & CM No.22613/2015
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Uday N. Tiwary, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Ojha, Advocates
versus
PREM NARAYAN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Rana, Mr. Siddharth,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 2nd June, 2015 whereby
the learned Industrial Tribunal has set aside the punishment of withholding
two increments with cumulative effect imposed by the petitioner on the
respondent.
2. The respondent is a driver with DTC. On 13th March, 2002, the
respondent was driving bus No.DL-1PB-0181 on route no.521. At about
6.36 am, the respondent took a right turn under the Moolchand flyover and
hit a pedestrian, Lal Bahadur who suffered fatal injuries. The petitioner
initiated domestic enquiry against the respondent in which the respondent
pleaded guilty whereupon the petitioner imposed a punishment of stoppage
of two annual increments on the respondent.
3. The legal representatives of the deceased, Lal Bahadur filed an
application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The DTC bus was validly insured with National Insurance Company
Limited and vide judgment dated 24th August, 2004, the Claims Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- to the legal representatives of the
deceased.
4. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 279/304A IPC.
However, the criminal case resulted in acquittal on the ground that the police
could not produce any eye witness.
5. The respondent challenged the imposition of punishment by the
petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that no evidence was
recorded in the enquiry to prove the guilt of the respondent. The respondent
pleaded that he signed a paper without reading on the assurance that no
action would be taken against him and he was misguided to admit the facts.
6. The learned Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent admitted the
guilt under coercion. The Industrial Tribunal further held that no eye
witness was examined to prove the negligence of the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the original record
which contains the inspection report after the accident. As per the inspection
report, the pedestrian hurriedly/blindly appeared before the DTC bus
whereas the respondent failed to control the speed of the bus and hit the
man. The inspection report observed that both pedestrian and driver of DTC
bus were at fault. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in the enquiry in
view of the respondent's admitting the guilt and the punishment of stoppage
of two annual increments is fair and reasonable.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the respondent has been
acquitted in the criminal case. It is further submitted that no eye witness was
examined by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. It is further
submitted that the respondent's admission was under coercion and therefore,
not binding on the respondent.
9. This Court is of the view that the finding of coercion by the Industrial
Tribunal is not based on any cogent evidence. The respondent admitted in
the statement of claim that he signed the admission of guilt without reading
on the assurance that no action would be taken against him. However, no
evidence was led to prove who gave him such assurance. The admission of
guilt by the respondent is held to be voluntary. In view of the admission of
guilt, the petitioner was justified in not leading the evidence. The acquittal
of the respondent in the criminal case is on the ground that the prosecution
was unable to produce the eye witness whereas the award of compensation
of Rs.3,92,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the legal
representatives of the deceased is based on the negligence of the respondent.
This Court is of the view that the accident in question would not have
occurred if the respondent had full control over the vehicle. Even if the
pedestrian was negligent, the respondent was not in full control over the
vehicle. The respondent was contributory negligent and the punishment of
stoppage of two increments by the petitioner is just, fair and reasonable.
10. The petition is allowed; impugned award is set aside and the
punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect by the
petitioner is upheld. The pending application is disposed of.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
July 06, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
