Delhi High Court
Upsrtc vs Nirmala Devi & Anr. on 12 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 12, 2018
+ MAC. APP. 303/2017 & CM 11875/2017
+ MAC. APP. 304/2017 & CM 11902/2017
+ MAC. APP. 305/2017 & CM 11906/2017
+ MAC. APP. 306/2017 & CM 11965/2017
UPSRTC .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate
versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ANR.
MASTER DEEPAK & ANR.
RAMESH CHAND SHARMA & ANR.
SANJAY SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kashyap and
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned four appeals relate to a vehicular accident
which took place on 26th June, 2011, in which respondents-Injured had
sustained injuries. Vide common Award of 23rd December, 2016,
compensation has been granted to the respondents-Injured by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟).
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above
captioned four appeals have been heard together and are being decided by
this common judgment.
3. In the above captioned first appeal, the challenge is to impugned
Award, vide which the Tribunal has granted compensation of ₹3,60,000/-
with interest @ 9% to respondent/Injured- Nirmala on account of
grievous injury sustained by her in this vehicular accident. In the above
captioned second appeal, the challenge is to grant of compensation of
₹3,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondent/Injured-Master Deepak
on account of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. The above
captioned third appeal questions impugned Award vide which
compensation of ₹7,60,223/- with interest @ 9% p.a. has been granted to
respondent/ Injured-Ramesh on account of injuries sustained by him in
this vehicular accident. In the above captioned fourth appeal, the
challenge is to grant compensation of ₹21,06,765/- with interest @ 9%
p.a. to injured-Sanjay.
4. The factual background of these appeals, as noticed in the
impugned Award, is as under :-
"On 26.06.2011 at about 7:30 am, the petitioners
namely Sanjay Sharma, Laxmi, Nirmala Devi, Pawan,
Ramesh Chand Sharma, Master Deepak and Jyoit had been
going to Aligarh from Shahadara on their maruti car bearing
no. DL6CF4205, which was driven by petitioner namely
Sanjay Sharma. When they reached near Shivam Nursing
Home, about ½ km from PS Dadri, Distt. Gautam Budh
Nagar, Delhi, all of a sudden the offending roadways bus
bearing no. UP 81AA 9788 of Hathras Depot which was
being driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit the
car of the injured persons. As a result of which petitioners
had received injuries. Petitioners were taken to Shivam
Nursing Home. Thereafater, petitioner namely Sanjay
Sharma was referred to Yashoda Hospital and other
petitioners were referred to GTB Hospital. The FIR No.
238/11/u/sec 279/338/427 IPC was also registered at PS
Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP in this respect."
5. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of Injured persons and the other evidence on record. On the
strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The
breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to Injured-Nirmala is as
under:-
Special Diet `30,000/-
Conveyance `30,000/-
Pain & Suffering `1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities of life `1,00,000/-
Attendant Charges ₹50,000/-
Compensation for disfiguration ₹50,000/-
Total `3,60,000/-
6. The Tribunal has granted lump sum compensation at ₹3,00,000/- to
Injured-Master Deepak, aged 9 years. The breakup of compensation
awarded by Tribunal to Injured-Ramesh is as under:-
Loss of income ₹38,532/-
Attendant Charges ₹25,000/-
Loss of future income due to ₹4,97,063/-
permanent disability
Medical Expenses ₹3,628/-
Special diet ₹8,000/-
Conveyance ₹8,000/-
Pain & Suffering ₹90,000/-
Loss of amenities of life ₹50,000/-
Compensation for disfiguration ₹40,000/-
Total ₹7,60,223/-
7. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to Injured-
Sanjay Sharma is as under:-
Loss of Income ₹51376/-
Attendant Charges ₹30,000/-
Loss of future income due to ₹8,55,410/-
permanent disability
Medical Expenses ₹9,09,979/-
Special diet ₹10,000/-
Conveyance ₹10,000/-
Pain & Suffering ₹1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities of life ₹70,000/-
Compensation for disfiguration ₹70,000/-
Total ₹21,06,765/-
8. Learned counsel for appellant-owner of the bus in question assails
the impugned Award on the ground that bus in question was not involved
in this vehicular accident. It is pointed out by appellant's counsel that
FIR was registered regarding this accident after two days and the
registration number of bus involved is not indicated in the said FIR. It is
also pointed out that FIR of this case has been registered at the instance of
Mukul Sharma, who is the nephew of injured-Sanjay Sharma. It is next
submitted that Mukul Sharma (PW-2), who had provided the registration
number of the bus in question, has claimed that he is not an eye-witness
to this accident. It is further submitted that after three months of this
accident, registration number of bus in question has been provided by
Sanjay Sharma. It is submitted that even Injured Ramesh claims that he
had provided the registration number of the bus in question after three
days of this accident to Mukul, who lodged FIR with the local police. It
is pointed out that evidence of above said witness-Mukul Sharma is
discrepant as at one place he maintains that registration number of bus in
question was provided to him by Sanjay Sharma and later on, in his
evidence he has stated that the registration number of bus in question was
provided by Injured-Ramesh. It is pointed out that there is discrepancy
inter se the evidence of Injured Sanjay and witness-Mukul Sharma
regarding who had provided the registration number of bus in question to
local police. It is pointed out that Injured-Nirmala in her cross-
examination has admitted that she could not note the registration number
of bus involved in this accident. So, it is submitted that in view of
aforesaid contradiction in the evidence regarding involvement of the bus
in question, appellant is not liable to pay awarded compensation.
9. Impugned award is also assailed by appellant's counsel on the
ground that the Tribunal has erroneously held driver of bus in question
was responsible for causing this accident while observing that appellant
had failed to mention the time when the bus had reached Delhi on the day
of the accident. It is submitted that appellant's witness i.e. driver of bus
in question, has not been examined on this aspect. It is submitted that had
it been so done, then the said record could have been produced. Thus, it is
submitted that liability to pay the awarded compensation is not of the
owner, as negligence of the bus driver does not stand proved.
10. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents-Injured supports
the impugned Award and maintains that the compensation granted is just
and proper.
11. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that Injured-Sanjay Sharma in his cross-examination has
stated that he had divulged the registration number of bus in question to
his nephew-Mukul Sharma, after he had regained his consciousness.
However at another place in the cross-examination, this witness-Sanjay
Sharma has volunteered that his nephew-Mukul Sharma has told him
about the registration number of the bus in question. Even Mukul Sharma
in his evidence has stated that registration number of the bus in question
was supplied to him by Injured-Sanjay Sharma.
12. Upon the cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record, I
find one stray line in cross-examination of Injured-Sanjay Sharma is not
sufficient to demolish the entire case, as the evidence of Injured-Sanjay
Sharma and witness-Mukul Sharma is consistent on the aspect of injured-
Sanjay Sharma informing his nephew-Mukul Sharma about the
registration number of the bus in question. Relevantly, Injured-Ramesh
Sharma in his cross-examination has stated that on regaining
consciousness he had informed the witness-Mukul Sharma about the
registration number of the bus in question. On this aspect, there is no
cross-examination of the Injured or witness-Mukul Sharma. Therefore,
on this ground, the evidence of witness-Mukul Sharma cannot be
disbelieved. Otherwise also, I find that the Tribunal has analysed in
detail on the ambiguity in respect of the registration number of bus in
question. On the negligence aspect, the Tribunal has correctly proceeded
on the basis of evidence recorded. One thing which has clearly emerged
from the evidence on record is that it was known after this accident that
bus which had caused the accident, was of Hathras Depot.
13. Pertinently, it has come in the evidence of driver of the bus in
question that on the day of the accident, he had driven the bus from
Hathras at 4:30 a.m. towards Delhi. Appellant had not disclosed before
the Tribunal nor in appeal that there was more than one bus of Hathras
Depot plying on the route from Hathras to Delhi early in the morning on
the day of the accident. Appellant has not brought on record as to when
the bus in question had reached Delhi on the day of the accident.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the aforesaid crucial
aspect, nothing has stopped appellant in divulging the above referred
information before this Court in appeal. The Tribunal has rightly
concluded that the bus in question could have reached the place of
accident at about 7:30 a.m. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in
morning hours, the traffic on the highway is light. In the face of evidence
on record, I find that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident
in question had taken place due to negligent driving by driver of the bus
in question. Thus, it is held that finding returned by the Tribunal on the
negligence aspect suffers from no infirmity and is hereby maintained. On
the quantum aspect, I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable.
15. In light of the aforesaid, finding no substance in these four appeals
and the applications, they are dismissed. Statutory deposit, if any, be
refunded to the Insurer.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
v
