Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Pratap Singh & Ors on 26 July, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 873/2016 and CM APPL.38953/2016
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION (UPSRTC) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate
versus
PRATAP SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Advocate
with Mr. Mohit Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ram Niwas, riding motorcycle bearing registration No.UP-
13M-2270, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 30.10.2013, in the area of village Kote, Dadri, G.T. Road,
U.P., allegedly on account of negligent driving of bus bearing
registration No.UP-16P-9142 of the appellant. His parents and wife,
first to third respondents (for short, the claimants), instituted accident
claim case (MAC Petition No.242/13) on 16.11.2013, which resulted
in inquiry leading to judgment dated 17.08.2016 whereby a finding
was returned that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the
bus by fourth respondent, the driver engaged by the appellant. The
tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.9,98,800/- with
interest @ 12% per annum directing the appellant to pay.
2. The appeal is pressed on the grounds that negligence was not
strictly proved in that the witness Harender (PW-2), who was
examined, his testimony described as eye witness account, could not
have been present at the scene in view of the record of investigation of
the case registered by the police and further that the computation of
the compensation was erroneous for the reason the multiplier should
have been adopted according to the age of the parents because the wife
(the third respondent) had re-married, a fact admitted by the first
respondent during the course of his testimony, besides the rate of
interest levied being excessive.
3. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants
conceded that further evidence was required to prove the involvement
and negligence of the bus in that in the record of investigation of the
corresponding police case, an eye witness named Ajab Singh was
available and the circumstances noticed during investigation could
have also been adduced through the testimony of the investigating
officer or other witnesses relating to the police investigation.
4. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the appeal may be allowed but he requested
that the case may be remitted to the tribunal reserving the contentions
of both sides on the issues raised in the appeal for further inquiry and
fresh adjudication.
5. Ordered accordingly.
6. The impugned judgment is set aside. The claim case is remitted
to the tribunal for further inquiry in which the claimants will be given
opportunity to lead further evidence which would, of course, be
followed by an opportunity to the contesting respondents to lead
evidence in rebuttal, if any. The tribunal shall take fresh decision
uninfluenced by the view taken in the judgment earlier passed. The
contentions concerning the computation of compensation, as urged by
the appellant herein, will also be considered by the tribunal.
7. For clarity, it is directed that the tribunal will now be obliged to
adjudicate only on the issue of negligence and computation of
compensation which is to be awarded in the present case, in the event
of the first said issue being decided in favour of the claimants.
8. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 25th August,
2017.
9. The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of order dated
21.10.2016 shall be presented refunded with statutory amount
deposited earlier.
10. Given the fact that the case is old, the tribunal shall make all
endeavor to take the fresh decision as expeditiously as possible.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
12. Pending application also stands disposed of.
13. Dasti to the parties.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 26, 2017
vk
