Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Saraswati Bisht & Anr on 11 October, 2019
KAMLESH KUMAR
04.11.2019 16:15
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 11.10.2019
+ MAC.APP. 745/2018
U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad and Mr. Shadab
Khan, Advocates.
versus
SARASWATI BISHT & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Sangwan, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 44828/2019
1. This application seeks restoration of the appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed.
3. The appeal is restored to its original number and seniority.
4. The application stands disposed-off.
MAC.APP. 745/2018
5. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 17.05.2018
passed by the learned MACT in MAC No. 168/2016 on the ground that the
injury caused to the claimant was entirely on account of her own negligence.
It is the appellant's case that the claimant, alongwith some 150 other
passengers, had simultaneously tried to board the bus, which was reversing
in the bus-bay, and in the process her leg came under the rear wheel of the
reversing bus. The impugned order has dealt with the issue as under:
"7. By the testimony of PW1 Saraswati Bist, it has duly
proved that on 30.04.2015, at about 08.20 AM, at Counter
No. 133, ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi, she was waiting for a bus
to go Udham Nagar, Uttrakhand when suddenly the offending
vehicle bearing No. UP-DT 7732 being driven by Respondent
No. 1 caused this accident while driving in rash and
negligent manner and she fell down and rear wheel of the bus
ran over her right leg. It is further proved that she informed
100 number and her family members removed her to Max
Hospital by ambulance where her MLC was prepared, it is
further proved that the police lodged an FIR No. 442/15 u/s
279/338 IPC with PS Madhu Vihar against the
driver/Respondent no. 1. Driver has been chargesheeted in
this case. Police have filed a DAR which comprising of
statement of injured which has corroborated that the
Respondent No.1 not only caused this accident but also
apprehended at the spot alongwith Offending vehicle. FIR
was lodged on the basis of the statement of injured in which
the which the number of offending vehicle was duly disclosed.
Police prepared the site plan which has proved the spot of the
accident. The offending vehicle was subjected to mechanical
inspection after its seizure and Mechanical Inspection Report
has also proved the fresh damage to the offending vehicle
which was possible during accident. The offending vehicle
was duly seized during the investigation. As such, petitioner
has proved the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and casing this accident by the Respondent No.1. The
offending vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 2 which
is vicariously liable for the act of its driver.
8. Ld. Counsel for Respondents has argued that this
accident took place by the fault of the injured as she tried to
board the vehicle during the process of reversing the vehicle
by the respondent No. 1 with the help of conductor to park at
counter, due to it was not fault of the respondent in causing
this accident. However, Respondent No. 1 was well aware
being a professional driver of this route that the passengers
usually try to board such interstate bus in this manner in
order to secure their seats and was supposed to take all due
care and caution while reversing the bus to keep away the
passengers but he did not take any such precaution which
resulted into sustaining injuries by the PW1 during accident.
In fact, the accident took place by the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No. 1. Injured
has proved that this accident was caused by the Respondent
No 1 by his rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and this Issue No. 1 is decided in her favour and
against the Respondents."
6. What emanates from the above is that the accident immediately was
intimated to the police, that it was caused by the rash and negligent driving
of the offending bus. A site plan and the DAR were so prepared.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of the
conductor remains unrebutted to the fact that he was in the rear of the bus
and was exhorting the passengers to move away so that the bus could first be
parked in the bus-bay and thereafter the passengers could board the bus.
8. Be that as it may, what is to be kept in mind is that when a bus is
being reversed to be parked in a bus-bay, especially when there are over 150
people allegedly milling around it, it would have been prudent and indeed
the duty of the bus driver to be extra cautious as to not reverse the bus into a
crowd of people allegedly lunging at it. In any case, nobody could have
boarded the bus or attempted to board it when the only entry into the bus
was through its single door which was closed. The passengers could have
endeavoured to get into the bus only when its door was opened, after it had
been properly parked into the bus-bay. Surely, the vehicle was reversed into
a crowd of people and this reversing resulted in injury to the claimant, this
nature of driving is rash and negligent. The Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
9. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
10. The statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be
deposited into the 'AASRA' fund of Delhi High Court.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
OCTOBER 11, 2019
AB
