DTC and Anr. v. Swaraj Sikri

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the award dated 18.01.2006.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that the claimant was going in a Maruti Van which was driven by Sh.Yogesh Sekhri. The van had other occupants also. It was said to be driven at a moderate speed. At Patel Chest Chowk/Khalsa College a DTC bus said to be driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the Maruit Van and caused multiple injuries and fracture to the occupants.

3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the DTC bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and struck the Maruti Van and caused the injuries to the claimant and other occupants of the vehicle.

4. Regarding compensation, the Tribunal noted that the claimant Smt.Swaraj Sekhri was a woman aged 61 years. She suffered permanent 2014:DHC:5132 disability to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- as follows:-

(i) Compensation on account of permanent disability

(ii) Medical expenses incurred (including the bills they might have not preserved) Rs.75,000/-

(iii) Future medical treatment Rs.20,000/-

(iv) Pain & Sufferings Rs.10,000/-

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has impugned the award submitting that it was a clear case of contributory negligence as the driver of the Maruti Van was also driving the vehicle at a high speed. Hence, he submits that at best the liability would have to be joint and equal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has refuted the contention of the appellant. He has submitted that in the present case, there were two claim petitions adjudicated upon by a common Award. Against one the appellant has filed an appeal while in the other claim petition there is no appeal filed. It is urged that the findings of fact regarding the negligence of the DTC bus now stands un-assailed in the other claim petition and hence the appellant cannot succeed in the present claim petition. It is further pointed out that the disability of the claimant is nearly 100% and the compensation awarded in any case is on the lower side. Reliance is placed on an order 10.12.2009 where this court had noted that the claimant has suffered 50% disability and is on wheel chair.

7. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal has noted that appellant No.2, the driver has been charge-sheeted by the police for rash and negligent driving. The claimant Mrs.Swaraj Sekhri has not been crossexamined and her testimony has gone un-rebutted. PW-1 has been crossexamined only with respect to the fact that he was driving the vehicle at a fast speed at the red light which he has denied. The Tribunal also noted that no passenger of the bus or the conductor has come in the witness box to support the version of appellant No.2. The accident has taken place in the early hours. The Tribunal noted that the vision of the driver of the bus was not obstructed because of which he could have seen the Maruti Van coming. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that appellant No.2 was guilty of rash and negligent driving.

8. PW-1 Mr.Yogesh Sekhri who was driving the Van in his testimony has said that his speed was only 30 KMPH and the DTC bus was being driven in a rash and negligent and at a fast speed. The only question posed in the cross-examination is that PW-1 was going in haste and caused the accident, which PW-1 has denied. There is no cross-examination of PW-1 on his testimony that the bus was being driven at a fast speed.

9. Reference may be had to the evidence of Mahavir Singh RW-1 who is the driver of the DTC bus i.e. appellant No.2. In his testimony he does not mention that he was driving the bust at a slow speed. Regarding the Maruti Van he states that it was being driven at a very fast speed. His response to the cross-examination is vague as he states that he had crossed the light and had reached the main crossing when he saw the Van coming at a fast speed. This evidence does not inspire confidence.

10. There are no reasons given to explain as to why the findings of the fact recorded by the Tribunals should be disturbed. There is no merit. The appeal is dismissed.

11. If any amount is still lying deposited in the court, the same may be released to the claimant with accumulated up to date interest.