Delhi High Court
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Ramesh Chand Verma & Anr. on 8 November, 2017
$~R-432
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 08th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1132/2011
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
RAMESH CHAND VERMA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (suit no.649/2009) was instituted on
29.09.2009 by the first and second respondents (collectively, the
claimants) seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of their son Mohit
Verma, then aged 23 years, in a motor vehicular accident that took
place on 08.06.2009 on the averments that it involved collision
between the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding on one
hand and a bus bearing registration no.RJ-18PA-1506 of the appellants
on the other. The claimants would attribute negligent driving on the
part of the second appellant (driver).
2. On the basis of the inquiry held, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Tribunal), by its judgment dated 15.07.2011, upheld the case
for compensation holding the bus driver responsible. It awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs.6,75,000/- and burdened the
liability to pay on the appellants with interest, such amount inclusive
of award under the head of loss of dependency calculated on the
notional income of Rs.5,000/- worked out with the help of minimum
wages payable during the relevant period.
3. The appellants filed the present appeal questioning the finding
on the issue of involvement of the bus on one hand and the negligence
on the part of its driver on the other. On perusal of the tribunal's
record, this court finds that the tribunal has applied the principle of res
ipsa loquitur and on that basis reached the conclusions about the
involvement and negligence. The said finding does not call for any
interference particularly against the fact that upon the interim award
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act having been granted by
order dated 21.09.2010 on the basis of finding of fact about the
involvement, the appellants did not put in any challenge and paid the
said amount without demur, it, therefore, reaching finality.
4. The appellants also question the dependency loss referring in
this context to the admission of the first claimant (PW-1) that he was
not making the payment to the deceased son when he would assist him
in his business. It may be that the father was not making any direct
payment to the deceased son for the services rendered in the shop but
that does not mean that there is no value to the services given.
5. The appeal, is thus, devoid of substance and is dismissed.
6. By order dated 05.01.2012, the appellants had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General, and by subsequent order dated 14.05.2012, fifty
percent (50%) of the awarded amount was released. It is noted that
the appeal came to be dismissed in default for non prosecution by
order dated 25.11.2013 when the remainder in deposit was also
allowed to be released. In these circumstances, no further directions
on this score are called for.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellants.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2017
yg
