Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Bijendra Narain Wahal on 26 September, 2017
$~R-268
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 804/2010
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad, Advocate with
Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
BIJENDRA NARAIN WAHAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent, a retired bank employee, then aged about
62 years, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred
on 20.03.2008. He instituted accident claim case (MACT
No.19/2010) on 10.02.2009 impleading the Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) and its employee Krishan Kumar
(driver) as respondents with the allegations that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.UP-
16P-9745 (the bus) of the UPSRTC (the appellant) by its said
employee. The appellant and its employee contested the claim case,
taking the position that the accident had occurred due to negligence on
the part of the claimant himself since he had tried to board the bus
while it was taking a turn at traffic light of Sector 37 bus stand from
the front door and had slipped in the process to come under its wheels.
2. The tribunal, on the basis of evidence led, by judgment dated
24.07.2010, held the driver (employee) of the appellant guilty of
negligence and awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.6,83,269/- calculating it thus:-
Sl. Head Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Compensation towards pain and suffering 70,000/-
2. Loss of amenities 50,000/-
3. Disfigurement and loss of expectation of life 60,000/-
4. Loss of income during treatment 18,000/-
5. Loss of earning capacity due to disability 1,76,400/-
6. Attendant charges for four months 16,000/-
7. Expenses towards unpaid medical bills 2,55,869/-
8. Expenses towards physiotherapy 10,000/-
9. Expenses towards artificial limb 17,000/-
10. Compensation towards conveyance and 10,000/-
special diet (without bills)
Total 6,83,269/-
3. The liability to pay the amount of compensation has been
fastened on the appellant.
4. By the appeal at hand, UPSRTC questions the correctness of the
finding on the issue of negligence pointing out that its driver had also
appeared as a witness (RW1) to narrate the sequence of events,
insisting that the account given by him was truthful.
5. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the
tribunal's record, this court finds no substance in the contention to
above effect.
6. The very fact that the position taken by the appellant is that the
claimant had tried to board the bus from the front door shows that the
driver was aware of such effort on the part of the passenger. If that
were the case, it was his bounden duty to bring the vehicle to a halt to
either take the passenger on board or desist him from taking such
unnecessary risk. It is inherent in the narration that the claimant had
come under the wheels of the bus of the appellant. However, the
statement of RW1 cannot be treated as the gospel truth. As per the
version of the claimant he was waiting for the bus at the proper station
when the bus in question had come at fast speed and had hit him, it
even trying to flee away from the spot but being forced to do so by the
public persons who had gathered. The tribunal has set out sound
reasons to accept the testimony of PW-1 as the one more acceptable,
going by the preponderance of probability, also having regard to the
fact that the bus driver was prosecuted on the criminal charge in the
corresponding criminal case by the police. In the given facts and
circumstances, this court declines to interfere with the findings
returned by the tribunal on the subject.
7. The appellant also questions the calculation of loss of earning
capacity due to disability on the basis of finding of the tribunal that the
claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from a private
employment submitting that the certificate (Ex.P-4) of M/s. Denis
Apparels to such effect was not in sync with the pleadings of the
claimant wherein he had claimed to be earning salary from a private
chartered accountant firm.
8. Even if above said certificate were to be ignored, there is ample
evidence to show that the claimant had the potential to earn atleast in
the region of the assessment of his earnings made by the tribunal. As
pointed out by the counsel for the appellant itself, the claimant had
proved that he was a retired bank employee, his pension being in the
sum of Rs.42,480/- per annum. Going by such documentary proof
about the income from pension, the income from regular employment,
post-retirement from bank, has been correctly evaluated by the
tribunal and calls for no interference.
9. The last point pressed by the appellant is that though the
claimant had deposed that he had taken treatment in Prayag Hospital
which had resulted in total bills of Rs.3,31,128/-, while calculating the
medical expenditure, the tribunal went by the total sum of
Rs.4,41,047/- indicated by the medical bills. This court finds no error
in the said calculation. The bill raised by Prayag Hospital, the medical
institution where part of the treatment was undertaken, does not
represent the entire expenditure towards treatment. The tribunal has
correctly gone by the total medical bills.
10. The appeal is wholly devoid of substance and is dismissed.
11. By order dated 29.11.2010, the appellant had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the
Registrar General and from out of such deposit, seventy five per cent
(75%) was allowed to be released. The balance lying in deposit shall
also now be released to the claimant in terms of the impugned award.
12. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant.
13. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
vk
