Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road ... vs Pramila Devi & Anr. on 15 April, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 509/2018 and CM APPL. 22433/2018
% Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2019
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORORATION
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ratneshwar Das and
Ms.Barnali Deka Das, Advocates.
versus
PRAMILA DEVI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.V.K.Vashishta, Advocate
for R-1 and R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
By the instant appeal, the appellant-the owner of the bus
bearing registration No.UP 50 AT 1092 in short 'the bus', assails the
judgment-award dated 24.02.2018 passed by MACT-01 (South-East),
whereunder, a total compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum has come to be awarded to the respondents,
on account of the motor accident involving 'the bus' and Tata Ace
bearing registration No.DL 1 LS 2524 in short 'Tata Ace', driven by
Abhishek-the deceased. Appellant assails the impugned judgment, on
two counts. One, as regards the contributory negligence of the
deceased in driving Tata Ace. Secondly, as regards the quantum of
compensation. In view of such limited challenge, the advertence to
the other factual aspects for maintaining the claim petition before the
Tribunal, is not called for.
2. Undisputedly, there was head on collision of the bus and Tata
Ace. In the written statement filed, the appellant, relevant to the
aspect of contributory negligence, averred as follows:
"Preliminary Submissions :
a. It is submitted without prejudice that the
present case is a clear case of contributory
negligence wherein the complainant's Mini
Truck was being driven by the deceased in a
reckless manner at a very high speed. It
further dashed against the bus of the
respondents which was coming from the
opposite side.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ....
c. It is submitted that the actual facts are that
on the date of the unfortunate incident that is
on 5th of July, 2015, the vehicle was being
driven by the driver of the respondent No.1
and was travelling from Azamgarh to Delhi.
The driver was driving the vehicle bearing
registration number UP 50 AT 1092 with
utmost care towards the safety of its
passengers and other vehicles on road. The
driver has a valid driving licence and has
been driving the bus for several years with
an untainted record of driving. ... .... .... ...."
3. The foregoing pleadings of the appellant before the Tribunal,
would leave no doubt that at the time of occurrence of the accident,
both the bus and the Tata Ace, were running on the road, of course,
driven by the driver of the appellant and the deceased respectively,
inasmuch as, there is no dispute as to the drivers of the respective
vehicles. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal and in the
instant appeal, it has, however, been contended that at the time of
occurrence of the accident, the bus was stationery and the deceased
rammed his vehicle into the bus, which was lying parked, and, was
stationery. It appears that such an argument, has its origin in the
deposition of the appellant's driver, who appeared as R1W1. To that
effect, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this
court to such deposition by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A, the relevant
part whereof, reads as under:
" 4 (a).... .... ....
... .... ... ... ... ...
... .... ... ... ... ...
f) The deponent states that the mini truck
was moving in a dangerous and reckless
manner at a very high speed. The deponent
states that the Mini Truck came from the
opposite side and dashed against the subject
bus.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..."
Interestingly, this driver R1W1, during cross, also
volunteered to depose that his bus was parked with 48 passengers on
one side of the road and the driver of the other vehicle came from
wrong side and hit the stationery bus resulting in the accident. Such
deposition of R1W1, it requires no elaboration, was certainly beyond
pleadings. In fact, quite contrary to the pleadings. The Tribunal took
note of it and rejected such deposition and held that the motor
accident, in which the deceased had sustained the fatal injuries, was
the resultant effect of rash and negligence driving of the bus. In
reaching such conclusions, the Tribunal has also taken note of the fact
that in the FIR, and, the charge sheet, that came to be filed on the
culmination of the investigations by the police, the driver of the bus
was found to be driving the bus rashly and negligently. In the given
facts and circumstances therefore, merely, the two vehicles collided
head on, in the absence of establishment of an act or omission
attributable to the deceased, none of which has come to be pointed out
during the course of hearing, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant
for any negligence attributable to the deceased, is wholly unfounded
and misconceived. Contention so raised is therefore rejected. Though,
learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the deceased
was, possibly, holding a fake DL inasmuch as it was issued by the
transport authority at Nagaland, whereas, he himself was resident of
Bihar, and, therefore, a presumption of contributory negligence be
drawn. Such submission is equally unfounded. It appears to have
been made for the sake of it. It is unmerited, firstly, for the reason,
nothing cogent came to be pointed out that the DL held by the
deceased was fake. Suffice to say, the DL having been issued by a
transport authority, its correctness cannot be doubted only on the
premise that the holder was a resident of another distant State or
otherwise. Secondly, nothing comes to be pointed out that the
occurrence of the accident was by any means attributable to the
deceased. Contention raised to the contrary is therefore rejected.
4. As regards the assessment of compensation, the learned counsel
for the appellant, made two fold contentions. One, the deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased at 50% was on the lower
side inasmuch as according to the learned counsel, but, for the
mother-the respondent No.1, the other claimant was the brother and
he could not be said to be dependent on the income of the deceased.
The other contention raised was as regards the compensation of
Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of funeral expenses. In the
submissions of the learned counsel, the Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors' 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1270 has fixed the compensation of Rs.15,000/- as the
upper limit under the head of funeral expenses. In her submission
therefore, the award of the maximum compensation of Rs.15,000/-
under the said head was unjustified. Both these submissions are
wholly meritless. During the course of hearing, it comes to be
pointed out that the deceased was aged about 25 years and unmarried,
and, that, his mother-the respondent No.1, was a widow. In the given
conspectus, deduction of 50% of the income towards the personal
expenses of the deceased, by itself, was no way a lesser deduction.
The other contention, this court does not consider it necessary to even
advert to inasmuch as the ratio of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) is not,
what is understood by the appellant and its counsel.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is wholly meritless, and,
is dismissed.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 15, 2019
dm
