U.P.S.R.T.C v. Amit & Ors

Judgment delivered on: July 28, 2008 UPSRC ...... Appellant. Through: Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva,Adv. versus Munni Devi ..... Respondent Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie for respondent. CORAM: JHON"BLE MR. JUSTICE I<AILASH GAMBHIR

¶1'} .w.

¶3Whether the Reporters of local papers n1.ay be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? I<AILASI-I GAMBHIR, "[. Arising out of the san1.e award, the appellants have filed eight separate appeals feeling aggrieved with the findings :,of the Tribunal primarily on the aspect of negligence while three cross appeals have been filed by clain1.ants clairning enhancement in compensation amount over and above the amount awarded by the TribunaL By way of this common order, eight appeals bearing MAC APP Nos. 309/2007, 310/2007, 311/2007, 312/2007, 313/2007, 314/2007, 319/2007 and 321/2007 filed by the appellant and cross appeals bearing MAC APP No.1077/2006, MAC APP No.1078-81/2006 and MAC APP No. 1082-86/2006, shall be disposed of. Brief facts which are common in these appeals are as under: On 9.2.1999 at about 7.00 P.M. 8 persons vvere going in a 1naruti car bearing registration no. DL 8CA 0628 from Delhi to Ferozabacl. When they reached near village Osani Bypass, a UP Roadways bus bearing registration no. UHI( 8299 came at a very fast speed from the direction of Ferozabad being driven in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and hit the maruti car which resulted in death of three persons and injury to five persons. Page 2 of2.7 MAC APP Nos. 309/2007, 310/2007, 311/2007, 312/2(())07, 321/2007: 313/2007, 319/2007 Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva, counsel for the appellant strongly contended that learned Tribunal has wrongly attributed negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant's bus who was driving the bus on its left hand side and made his best efforts to avert the accident by even entering the extreme left kuccha portion, but still the Maruti Car which was being driven in a most rash and negligent manner while overtaking a truck, got collided with the bus and slipped under the said bus. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a normal speed and was on the correct side of the road and it was the driver of the Maruti Car vvho under the influence of liquor_ came on the wrong side of the road and in the process of overtaking a vehicle, proceeded ·ahead and came on the wrong side of the road and struck against the bus. The driver of the bus could not anticipate that the driver of the Maruti Car would overtake the vehicle but still , . ') I to save the Maruti Car_ the driver of the bus even entered the kuchcha portion on his left side but still the Maruti Car slipped under the bus itself. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for appellant contended that Maruti Car was overloaded with three persons sitting in the front seats while five at the rear seat. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even an expert driver can loose control of the car in such a situation as \1\lith two persons sitting on the left side of the driver ·would restrict easy 1naneuvering of brakes/gears. Counsel for appellant further urged that injured/clailnants have given contradictory statements before learned MACT while bus conductor - produced by the appellant gave correct version of the accident, but still the Tribunal believed the version as given by the claimants while discarding and disbelieving the version of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant also took serious objection to non-impleadment of driver/owner and Insurer of the Maruti Car although, the same were necessary parties in the claim petition. Counsel Page 4-of 27 • \ W>l' ,,J._,_.--=-------•H * --•--- for the appellant also impinged the award on the ground that at least the Tribunal ought to have held both the vehicles liable for contributory negligence for causing the said accident instead of holding the bus of the appellant solely liable for causing the said accident. The contention of the counsel for: the appellant is that in a case of 'Head On Collusion/ between two vehicles/ J rashness and negligence could not have been attributed on the part of one vehicle alone but both the drivers of the vehicles should have been held responsible to have equally contributed to that accident. Counsel for the appellant also contended that the respondents/claimants failed to prove the site plan from the criminal records and had the same been proved it would have certainly given the exact picture --J as to how the accjdent had occurred. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments: 1) 2006 AC] 1058 (SC) Bijoy I<umar Dugar Vs. Biclyadhar Dutta & Ors. t • 2) 2006 (3) TAC 11 (Born) Shivaji Waman Eodage & Ors. Vs. Chandrapati Ishwar Singh Dahiya Sr Ors. 3) 2006

(3) TAC 177(P&H); C.].Singh Vs. Gur Rattan Pal Singh & Anr. Mr. 0 .P. Mannie, learned counsel for the respondent; on the other hand, vehemently refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Mannie submitted that the accident ·was solely caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver of the appellant as the same was being driven on the wrong side of the road and had hit the Maruti Car coming from the opposite direction fro1n the side of Delhi, at a very slow speed an.d on its proper left hand side. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the clain1.ants who suffered injuries in the said accident gave correct version of the said accident and their testin1.onies were duly supported by documentary evidence produced fro1n the crilninal court including the site plan. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the driver of the offending bus alone was challaned by the t .... " .. . . " ·•" .;,ja.i·ff-·· .. "• ... ... ::· . 'li .;... ' f ••.• ' ': i ..... ; ' ,,!! ' ; ,'•'.·.:.l\:·.·. ' l .th ... ' . ,' !' ' ... lJ,. "' ... : · ·.· '' :, . ',' : .:l···1r-····,_ .·.!' . . .. 'r )"):'•' :, ,·:a:·::·: ' 'f·· ,. .. ::f'' . ),IJ··\: . , f; .. ;it;.J ' ·, . . ' ,J ... ;·::t: .. ··.;J'!· . . :, . !. :.Jt,··· , ' ':fJ;, .: · .. .. ;;.·. : } .· .. · .·. t,., ... Police for his rash and negligent driving. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that even if there are some contradictions in the state1nents of the claimants about the posHion of the vehicle prior to the accident; then, the same 1nay not be of 1nuch importance as the main question is the positioning of the vehicles at the time of occurrence of the accident. In support of his argu1nents, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following judg1nents: 1) 1980 ACJ 435 SC, N.K. V.Bros.(P)Ltd. Vs. M. ICarumai Ammal & Ors . 2) 1991 SC 487 Basthi ICasim Saheb Vs.The Mysore State Road Transport Corp. & Ors . 3) 1 (1994) ACC 504 (P&H), Girdhari Vs. Radhey Shya1n & Ors. 4) 2004 TAC 45 6 (Mad) (DB); ICo ttabomrnan Transport Corp. Ltd. Vs. Vellai Duraichi & Ors. Counsel for respondent also disputed applicability of the ratio of the judgment reported in Blijoy :K.umar Duggar (Supra) as in the said case, the collision ' ; .. · ... .·· . . ... . : : .... 'I ------- had occurred between the vehicles in the middle of the road. ·vvhile in the facts of the present case, the offending bus came on the wrong side of the road and hit the Maruti Car. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record. Perusal of the award shows that the Tribun.al has threadbare taken into account the testimonies of the witnesses produced by the claimants as well as that of the appellant and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant was solely negligent to cause the accident. -.1 PW4 Mr. Amit Kumar in his deposition categorically denied the suggestion given by the appellant that their ·was on the wrong side of the road or the of t;he car overtook the vehicle ahead of the car. PW5 Mr. Jitender also denied in his cross examination that there was any vehicle ahead of the car. But this witness in his cross examination stated that the car was in the middle of the road. Similarly, PW 6, Ivfr. Vikas @ MAC APP No. Vickky, in his cross examination also deposed that the Maruti Car was in the middle of the road. The said inconsistency \Nhich crept into the deposition of the two witnesses, has been duly considered by the TribunaL and then arrived at a finding that the driver of the appellant's bus was responsible for causing the accident. Perusal of the award also amplifies that it is not the said inconsistency in the deposition of the two witnesses but the Tribunal also found evasive and contradictory stand taken by the appellant \.Yith regard to the facts leading to the accident. In the written statement filed by the appellant, nowhere it has been stated that the Maruti Car was trying ....) to overtake a truck which was ahead of ·that. But in the evidence the theory of truck \"las introduced. Similarly, nowhere in the written statement, the stand was taken that the bus had entered the kuchcha portion on its left side after finding the speeding Maruti Car coming from the opposite direction after overtaking the alleged truck. The Tribunal also observed that the bus driver did not put any Page 9 of27 --- . ..:.. ·- effort to avert the accident even after finding a IVI:aruti Car co1ning from the opposite direction. In the written state1nent the appellant took the stand that the driver had stopped the bus after entering the kachha portion. It is also stated that the driver could not anticipate that the Maruti Car \.vould overtake. There is yet another glaring error con1.mitted by the appellant in not producing the driver of the offending bus in the evidence. No explanation has come forth as to why the evidence of the driver who was the only material evidence was withheld by the appellant. The evidence of the conductor as adduced by the appellant cannot be considered to be the substitute of the evidence of the driver who could be the best evidence to depose about the exact facts and circumstances confronted by him at the time of the occurrence of the accident. The adverse inference thus has to be drawn against the appellant for non production of such a material witness. If the version that the offending bus of the appellant entered into the kuchcha portion on the left side, is believed as correct, then certainly, the said accident killing three persons and injuring five persons -- il_ .- ---- could have been easily avoided. It is no doubt true that in cases where head 'on collision between two vehicles is established on record, then responsibility ordinarily can be fastened on both the being contributory negligent. But, then, in such a case, a clear case of head 'on collision between two vehicles' coming just opposite to each other in aln1.ost middle of the road, has to be established on record. In case of Bijoy JK.umar Duggar (Supra), the facts were established before the Tribunal that drivers of both. the vehicles involved in the accident were rash and negligent and keeping in view the facts as proved in the said case, the Apex Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal holding both the vehicles equally responsible in contributing to the accident. It is also matter of record--that only the drlver of the offending bus was challaned by the police for rash and negligent driving under Section 279/337 /338/304-A, IPC while no such case was registered against the driver of the Maruti Car. No copy of ·the site plan was proved by either of the parties, although the same would have thrown enough light to determine the exact facts leading to the occurrence of the accident. The Page l1 of 27 ·------------·- _· appellant could have also summoned the criminal court record to prove the site plan, had it been serious in proving the negligence on the part of the driver of the lVlaruti Car. Photocopy of the site plan of the criminal case has now been produced by the counsel for the respondent and perusal of the sa1ne does not show that the Maruti Car was in the middle of the road while the truck was on its left side. Be that as it may, in every case relating to head on collision there cannot be absolute rule that both the vehicles, which met with the accident, shall remain liable to the extent of 50:50. It is on the basis of the facts and circu1nstances of each case that the courts and tribunals have to decide about the negligence and the extent of such negligence of the vehicles involved. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, I do not any negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car and therefore, no interference is made in the award on this count. -----·-···-- In the light of the above dl.scussion, I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned award, and therefore, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the driver of the Maruti Car was equally negligent in causing the said accident. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is repelled. No other ground of challenge has been made by the appellant during the course of the arguments as the counsel for the appellant had confined his arguments to challenge the impugned award on the aspect of negligence and contributory negligence only. In view of the above, I do not find that there is any merit in the present appeals filed by the appellant UPSRTC and the same are hereby dismissed. Now I propose to deal with the three separate appeals filed by the claimants claiming enhancement in the compensation amount. I\1AC APP No. 1082-86/2006 In MAC APP No. 1082-86/2006, compensation amount of with interest @6o/o p.a. has been awarded in favour of the claimants but ;, ··- ·-- - . . feeling not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. The appellants have primarily claimed enhance1nent on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into the grant of future increase in the wages although income of the deceased was assessed under the Minimum Wages Act. Enhancement has also been clain1.ed on the ground of 1/3rd deduction of the income of the deceased to-wards his personal expenses which as per the appellant should have been 1/4th, ·keeping in view the large family comprising of widow of the deceased and four children left by him. Enhancement is also claimed towards the inadequate con1.pensation amount granted towards the loss of love and affection, loss of consortium. The appellants have separately claimed further compensation an1.ount under the non pecuniary damages to a sum of Rs.l lac tovvards the loss of services and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. The interest has also been claimed @9o/o p.a., in place of interest granted by the Tribunal @6o/o p.a. In support of the said enhancement, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments. ..

¶1MAC APP No.40/2004. & Cross objections /2004, dated 25.1.2007

¶22002 ACJ 2076 (Del) (DB),Vishakha Devi & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr.

¶32007 ACJ 2123(SC), Mohinder ICaur & Ors. Vs. I-Iira Nand Sinclhi (Ghoriwala) & Anr.

¶42007 (VI) AD (Delhi) 730, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirn1.ala Devi & Ors. Per contra counsel for respondent contended that the impugned award is just and fair and requires no interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This court has already taken a view that wherever the income of the victim of the accident is considered under the Minimun1. Wages Act, then necessarily increase shall also necessarily follow, based on the Minimum Wages Act itself. It has been noticed that the minimum wages get almost more than double within a span of 10 years period and therefore, accepting the contentions of the counsel for the appellant, the minimum wages of Rs.2514/-as taken into consideration by the Tribunal would have become double to a sum of Rs.5028/-and then taking the average of the sani.e, tb.e income of the deceased would come to Rs.3771. The deceased was survived by his j widow and four children. Out of the four cluldren one was minor at the time of the accident and therefore, I accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that 1/4'h deduction would be appropriate to be deducted towards the personal expenses. The annual financial loss of the dependents would come to Rs.33,939/-. The deceased was 42 years old at the time of the accident as per .the age disclosed in the post mortem report and therefore, it is apparent that age of the widow of the deceased would be below the said age only as per the Indian tradition. Considering the age of the widow, I feel that thB amount of co1npensation has not granted adequate towards loss of consortium. The same is raised from Rs.lO,OOO/-to Rs.50,000/-. The deceased was survived by four children and therefore, the amount. of compensation as granted by the Tribunal .towards loss of love and affection is raised from Rs.lO,OOO/-to Rs.20,000/-. As far ., ' . 1 l I l ' I as the contention pertaining to tl1e award of amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to appellants due to the sudden demise· of their only son and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellancs is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not conventional heads of damages. Thus, no separate compensation can be granted towards the loss of services. No rate of interest is fi)(ed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the 111oney, which ought to have been paid to him. Time ancf ag-ain the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including inflation, change of econon1y, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank: of India from ti111e to tin1e and other economic factors .. As regards the enhancement in the rate of interest is concerned, I am I I i ( ' li £ i \ i f i I :J!OWI ,; of the view that grants of 6o/o interest is just and fair and requires no interference. Rs. 10,000/-is awarded towards loss of estate as same is not awarded by the Tribunal. The co1npensation amount is thus enhanced from Rs.3,32,000/-to Rs.5,99,085/-. fhe differential a1nount shall be paid with interest @7% p.a. by the UPSRTC to the appellants from the date of filing of the petition till realisation·. The an1.ount shall be paid in the MAC APP No.1082-86/2006 in the manner to be decided and apportioned by the Tribunal. MAC APP !Nlo.1078-81J2006 In MAC APP No. 1078-81/2006, the compensation amount of Rs. 4,20,000/-with interest @ 6o/o p.a. has been --J awarded in favour of the claimants but feeling dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, appellants claimants preferred the present appeal. The appellants have primarily claimed enhancement on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the grC?nt of future increase in the wages although income of the deceased was assessed under the Minimum Wages Act. Enhancement has ,.../ I ;,• I vt J J also been claimed by wrongly deducting l/3rd of the incorne of the deceased towards his personal expenses which as per the appellant should have been 1/4th keeping in view the large family comprising of widow of the deceased, aged parents and a daughter left by him. Enhancement is also claimed towards inadequate compensation amount granted towards the loss of consortium. The counsel also claimed compensation towards loss of love & affection. The appellants have separately claimed further compensation amount under the non pecuniary damages to a sum of Rs.l lac towards the loss of services and Rs.25,000/-towards loss .of estate. The interest has also been claimed @9°/o p.a., in place of interest granted by the Tribunal @6o/a p.a. In support of the said enhancement, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments: -

¶1MAC APP No.40/2004 & Cross objections /2004, dated 25.1.2007

¶22002 ACJ 2076 (Del) (DB),Vishakha Devi & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr.

¶32007 ACJ 2123(SC), Moh.inder Kaur & Ors. v·s. Hira Nand Sindhi (Gh.oriwala) & Anr. ·-1 'j i l I ·i ,._." ·-... · - : __ _;: .. _____ , _____ -----__ ,- ,. l j \ 1 I J J l . I

¶42007 (VI) AD (Delhi) 730, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Per contra counsel for respondent contended that the impugned ayvard is just and .fair and requires no interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This court has already taken a view that wherever the income of the victim of the accident is considered under the Minimum Wages Act, then necessarily increase shall also follow, based on the Minimum Wages Act itself. It has been noticed that the wages under the Minimurn Wages Act become almost more than double within a span years period and therefore, accepting the contentions gf the counsel for the appellant, the minimum wages of P ... s.2772/- pm as taken into consideration by the Tribunal would have doubled to a sum of Rs.5544/- and then taking the average of the same, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.4158/-. The deceased was survived by his widow, his aged parents and a daughter and accept the . J t J•' ·- - - ..... - r-- . p ,\) ) l l I l

¶1i . ! ·! .. .. :. ·---------· ·····- contention of the counsel for the appellant that l/4th deduction would be appropriate to be deducted towards the personal expenses. The annual financial loss of the dependents would come to Rs.37,422/. The deceased was 25 years old at the tir·,e of the accident and therefore, it is apparent that age of the widow of the deceased would be below the said age only as per Indian tradition. Considering the age of the widow, I feel that the Tribunal has not granted adequate amount of compensation towards loss of consortium. The same is raised from Rs.lO,OOO/- to Rs.SO,OOO/-. The deceased was survived by his aged parents and a daughter and therefore, the amount of compensation towards loss of love and affection is allowed at Rs.l5,000/-. Further, Rs. 10,000/- is allowed towards loss of estate. As far as the contention pertaining to the award of amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the ' .J f ) ' 1 I i I I J .1 i I 'I 1 i I I .I i "I l I I ')}. same as the same are not conventional heads of damages. Thus, no separate compensation can be granted towards the loss of services. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or of money and U1at interest is awarded to a party onJy for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts· and circumstances of the . case and taking into consideration relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to tirne and other economic factors. As -regards the enhancernent in the rate of interest is concerned, ·1 am of the view that grants of 6o/o interest is just and fair and requires no interference. The compensation amount is thus enhanced from Rs. 4,20,000/- to Rs. 7,58,596/-. The differential amount shall be paid with interest @ 7°/o pa by the UPSRTC to the appellants from date of filing of the petition till realisation. The amount shall be paid in the MAC APP No. 1078-81/2006 in the manner to be .decided and apportioned by the Tribunal. MAC APP Nov 1077/2(Ql06 In MAC APP No. 1077/2006, the compensation amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest@ 6°/o p.a. has been awarded in favour of the claima'lt but feeling dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, appellant claimant has preferred present appeal. The appellant primarily claimed enhancement on the ground that the Tribunal l1as not taken into consideration increase in minimurn wages while assessing income of the appellant injured under the 1\1\inirnurn Wages Act. The counsel also urged enhan-cement under the -heads of special diet, conveyance expen5es,-.pain and suffering & loss of amenities of life. Further, the counsel clain1ed compensation towards loss of income during treatment, compensation towards disability and disfigure111ent as the same is not awarded by the tribunal. The counsel also contended that appellant suffered 60% disability but the tribunal assessed the same at SOo/o. The interest has also been claimed @9% p.a., in place of ':"'"5 , I . I " interest grantea. by the Tribunal @6°/o p.a. In support of the said enhancement, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶12007(3) TAC 397 (Dei),Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors.

¶2I (2008) ACC 70 (Del),Ram Avtar Vs.Davinder Singh & Ors.

¶31999 ACJ 809 (DeiLAmar Singh Vs. lshwar & Ors.

¶41996 ACJ 372 (Del) Rattan Lal Mehta vs. Rajinder Kapoor

¶52003 ACJ 1420 (Karnataka) Managing Director, Northeast Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. Vs. T. Prabhakar & Ors

¶62007 (3) TAC 420 (Dei),Saurabh Kurnar(l\llaster) Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.

7. 1995 ACJ 366

(SC) R.D. Hattangdi vs. Pest Control Pvt. Ltd. .. -.... ·-..-.-- .. ..,.......... ....... _ .... -· -- .. -.,- .... , ................ -,...-____________ _,..._ .. _ ... -- __ fLJELH! DLI. -11ocnt=: ·i I j ' I I 4'-,l\ r Per contra counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned award is just and fair and requires no interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the foregoing discussion regarding future increase in income, I accept the contentions of the counsel for the appellant, the minimum wages of Rs.2796/- pm as taken into consideration by the Tribunal would have .; become double to a sum of Rs.5592/- and then taking the average of the same, the income of the deceased would con1e to Rs.4194/-. The appellant, who was of 18 years of age and was still a student, has suffered complete damage of one eye, fracture of nose, fracture of right le-g and rod was inserted. Considering this, the compensation t-owards speCial diet and conveyance expenses is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Compensation towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- & compensation towards loss of amenities of life is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. As regards loss of income during treatment, I do not find it appropriate to award compensation under the said head as the appellant was still a student and was not earning, thus, no compensation can be awarded towards loss of income during treatment. But, compensation towards disability and disfigurement can be awarded, considering the kind of injuries suffered by the appellant, Rs. 30,000/- is awarded towards disfigurement and Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards disability. As regards the disability, the visual disability has beJn proved to the extent of 30o/o as per the certificate issued by the doctor of the Trauma Centre and the tribunal took the visual disability towards work as 50°/o. The appellant did not bring any document on record to prove the visual disability towards work by way of any cogent evidence but still the tribunal assessed it at 50%, therefore, the tribunal has been..J quite generous in this regard, thus, I do not feel inclined-to interfere in the said finding of the tribunal. As regards the enhancement in the rate of interest, in view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that grant of 6o/o interest is just and fair and requires no interference. . ".J I •.. I ! •' .::::{ •'·' ;( : l ·. ______ -:--:::. I .,;.• I The compensation amount is thus enhanced from Rs. 3,85,000/- to Rs. 7,08,794/-. The differential amount shall be paid with interest @ 7% pa by the UPSRTC to the appellants from date of filing of the petition till realisation. In view of the above discussion, the aforesaid appeals are disposed of. July 28 .. 2008 GAMBHIR .. J ··"' G ,.J (.,.../ ................ _ l1_ ....... -, .... J ,- ' ; {" ; .. • .. -- .... .-.... _:-- :t - ..... : • Page 27 of27 .. - ....... - - •. - •. ---·---·--· ... - _.. .....

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI UPSRTC Amit Kumar CORAM: MAC APP No. 321/2007 Judgment reserved on: February 13. .2008 Judgment delivered on: _cK=-u...8"----·-_·7L-_L-• =2=0=0-=-8 ...... Appellant. Through: Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva,Adv. versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie for respondent. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. -Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, I. For orders, see MAC APP No. 310/2007. ;lg-j- ,2008 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. • --··· r :::· .. - _·:.l_ -: · ... ·_:t IN THE IIIGli COURT OJF DELHI AT NJEW DJELHI Judgment reserved on: February 13, ,2008