U.P.S.R.T.C v. Gajraj Singh & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.368 of 2005 % Judgment reserved on: 18th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on:26th August, 2008 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C) Through its Regional Manager, Gaziabad (U.P.) ….Appellant Through: Mr.Rakesh Sachdeva, Adv. Versus 1.Gajraj Singh S/o Chiddu Singh 2.Smt.Munni Devi, W/o Gajraj Singh Both r/o V-151, Arvind Mohalla, Near Jindal Factory, Ghonda,Delhi-110053 3.Sh.Vijender Kumar s/o Chotey Lal (driver) Through Depot Manager, U.P.Roadways, Loni Depot Ghaziabad, U.P. …Respondents. Through: Mr.Sanjay Mishra, Adv. for respondents 1 & 2. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. The appellant who is the owner of offending bus has filed the present appeal against impugned order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by Ms.Bimla Kumari, Judge, MACT, Delhi vide which she awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,40,500/- in favour of respondent No.2 Smt.Munni Devi, mother of the deceased. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 17th March, 2003, deceased was returning to his home on his bicycle. At about 11.45 A.M., when he reached near Indrapuri Police Chowki, Sahibabad, a bus UP bearing No.UP-14B-4854 came from opposite side and firstly, it hit a scooter No.DL-75-T-5969 and then rammed into the bicycle of deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down on the road and received grievous injuries and was removed to GTB Hospital where doctor declared him brought dead. It has been alleged that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.3, Vijender Kumar. 3. The appellant as well as driver of the bus filed their joint written statements before the Tribunal alleging that the F.I.R. lodged against bus driver is false and fabricated and there was no fault of the bus driver in the alleged accident. However, it was admitted that the respondent No.3, the driver on the given date and time was driving the bus and the speed of the bus was hardly 20 km per hour. All of a sudden, deceased while driving his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and struck against a scooter and then he came in the channel of the Bus and sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and it is a case of contributory negligence. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the bus driver. It was the deceased who had hit the scooter in the first instance and thereafter came into the channel of the bus and, thus, was guilty of contributory negligence. 5. The other contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in taking the annual income as Rs.36,000/- after having itself observed that minimum wages rates applicable to Delhi in year 1993 was Rs.2783.90.p.m. In fact, notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") should have been considered for calculating the income of the deceased. 6. Another contention made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 15 whereas, the claimants would have been dependant on deceased for not more than a further period of five years considering the fact that deceased would have been married and had started living separately in another five years. 7. Lastly, it is contended that the father of deceased has himself deposed that his another son is labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he himself is earning Rs 3,000/- per month and, thus, the claimants were not dependant on the deceased. 8. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 that the petition filed earlier