Delhi High Court
Upsrtc vs Parveen on 20 September, 2017
$~R-236 to R-238
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 541/2010
UPSRTC ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan for Ms.
Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
PARVEEN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
+ MAC APPEAL No. 584/2010
UPSRTC ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan for Ms.
Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
ZAHIR HUSSAIN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
+ MAC APPEAL No. 590/2010
UPSRTC ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan for Ms.
Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
MASTER SHANNE ALI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
MAC Appeal No. 541/2010 & conn. Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondents in these three connected appeals were
travelling together in van bearing registration no. DL 3CM 0771 (the
van) from Delhi to Bareilly on the night of 14.10.2003. It is stated
that at about 0430 hours in the area between Shahjaad Nagar and
Gharora in UP, the van developed some mechanical problem due to
which it had to be parked on roadside. It is at that stage that bus
bearing registration no. UP 14 2680 (the bus), concededly of the
appellant Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC),
came from the rear side and hit against the stationary van, causing
injuries to all the said three persons.
2. Three accident claim cases (suit nos. 244, 247 and 245 of 2009
respectively) were instituted on 01.02.2010 seeking compensation.
The Tribunal held inquiry and thereafter, by common judgment dated
12.03.2010, accepted the case of the claimants about they having
suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident due to negligent driving
of the bus by its driver, employee of the appellant. Compensation in
each case was awarded, the liability to pay having been fastened on
the appellant with interest @ 8 % per annum.
3. These appeals seeking to assail the said common judgment
governing the three claim cases were filed and are pressed on the
common ground that there was no accident involving the bus and that
the story has been falsely created, it being pointed out that there was
no corresponding police case registered.
4. It is noted that in the claim cases of Parveen and Zahir Hussain,
they appeared as their own witnesses while (PW-2 and PW-1
respectively), in the case of child Shanne Ali, his father Dabir Hussain
(PW-3), appeared as a witness in addition to one Nazir Hussain (PW-
2). The appellant, by its written statements, had joined issue by
pleading that the case was unfounded, the averments basically being to
deny the facts alleged in the petitions. It was, also, added that the bus
was on its route from Delhi to Lucknow. The driver of the bus Ganga
Prasad (RW1) was examined by the appellant only in the claim case of
Zahir Hussain, he deposing on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.RW-
1/A). In the said affidavit, he stated that the bus was bound from
Delhi to Lucknow and that it had reached Sitapur where it had
developed some defect due to bursting of the diesel pipe and, thus,
was taken for repairs adding that no accident took place with the bus
between Delhi and Sitapur. Noticeably, when Zahir Hussain
appeared as his own witness (PW-1) in his claim case, it was
suggested to him that the bus was in a depot since it was under repairs,
this in an effort to show that the bus was not even plying on the
relevant date and time. Such suggestion was given apparently against
own pleadings of the appellant and shows the stand taken in the
written statement in poor light. No proof of the repairs arranged for
the bus, or the cause thereof, has been submitted in support. Going by
the preponderance of probabilities, the repairs could also have been in
the context of damage to the body of the bus that may have been
suffered due to collision against the van.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court declines to interfere with
the finding on the question of involvement of the bus and negligence
on the part of its driver.
6. In the context of claim of child Shanne Ali, exception has also
been taken to the inclusion of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the award on account
of loss of studies. Having perused the record, this Court finds no
substance in this plea as well. The evidence of the father (PW-3) of
the said claimant shows loss of one year of studies. The award on this
account, therefore, cannot be grudged.
7. No other ground was pressed at the hearing.
8. The appeals are dismissed.
9. By order dated 09.09.2010, in each of these appeals, the
appellant had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount and
from out of such deposits, 50% (fifty percent) was allowed to be
released to the respective claimants. The balance retained in deposits
shall also now be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned
judgment.
10. The statutory deposits shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
nk
