Mr. Ataul Haque, Adv. v. RAM CHANDER MAHTO & ORS. .....

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- has been awarded to the claimants.

2. The accident dated 30th January, 2001 resulted in the death of Anil Prasad Mahto. The deceased was survived by his widow, two daughters and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was crossing the road near SDM Office Punjabi Bagh when a DTC Bus bearing No.DL-1P-9952 driven by appellant No.2 hit the deceased and fled away from the 2009:DHC:2754 registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The FIR, MLC and post-mortem report were proved as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B.

4. The only ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the appellants at the time of hearing of this appeal is that the bus in question was not involved in the accident and, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased.

5. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1P-9952 by appellant No.2. The reasons for the above finding are given in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned award which are reproduced hereunder:- “8. In addition to it, the petitioners placed on record certified copies of the challan filed against R[1] in the criminal Court, which includes chargesheet, FIR, mechanical Inspection report and superdarinama of vehicle no. DL-1P-9952, site plan, recovery of driving licence of Azad Singh. R[1], in his deposition as RW[1] admitted that he was driver on bus no.DL-1P-9952 on 30.1.2001 and was plying on route no.929 from Punjabi Bagh to Mubarak Pur but denied that any accident took place on 30.1.2001. However, he was informed of this accident on 31.1.2001 in the late evening hours that the bus was involved in the accident on 30.1.2001. During crossexamination, he admitted that he was going at about 8.00 p.m from Punjabi Bagh to Mubarak Pur and criminal case was pending against him but he denied that any accident took place with his bus or he fled away from the spot. The cumulative effect of the evidence brought by the petitioners, it becomes clear that Anil Prasad Mahto died of the road accident dated 30.1.2001. On the other hand, onus was on respondents to prove that their bus was not involved in the accident. Respondents could have proved this fact by producing the accident register kept at respective depots through which entry and exit of bus is also regulated. It is further clarified a register is maintained by respondent Delhi Transport Corporation for the accidents taking place in the National Capital Region at their respective depots. This register was not brought on record and was withheld by R[2]. With the help of this register, it could have been brought on record that whether bus no. DL- 1P-9952 was involved in the accident or not. In the absence of any corroboration, I discard the testimony of R[1].

9. On the other hand, this Tribunal can always take cognizance of charge-sheet filed by police against driver of the offending vehicle or report of an Officer-in-charge of a police station U/S 158(6), Motor Vehicles Act of an accident to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. The petitioners placed on record certified copies of the challan filed in the Criminal Court which shows that R[1] was charge-sheeted by P.S. Nangloi in FIR no.80/2001 U/S 279/304-A IPC, so an adverse inference is drawn against R[1] in this case. Reliance is placed on Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N.K.V. BROS. (P) LTD. VS.

M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND OTHERS AIR 1980 SC

1354. In this case, it is held that the requirement of culpable rashness U/S 304-A IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the Law of Torts to create liability. Accidents Claims Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and driver and owner do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there: culpability must be inferred from the circumstance where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties technicalities and mystic maybes. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of BASANT KAUR AND OTHERS VS.

CHHATAR PAL, 2003 ACJ 369, in which it was held: “That apart, a criminal case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the driver of truck no.MBN1637. This fact is relevant under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which after the accident, the Station House Officer has to inform the Claims Tribunal about taking place of accident. This case involves the driver of truck No.MBN 1637. These facts are enough to record the finding that the truck No.MBN 1637 was responsible for committing accident and not truck No.MKO 9729.””

6. I agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal. There is sufficient evidence to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of DTC bus bearing No.DL- 1P-9952 by appellant No.2 resulting in death of Anil Prasad Mahto. There is no challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with the learned Tribunal in terms of the order dated 17th May, 2005 passed by this Court out of which 50% of the award amount has been released to the claimants. The remaining 50% of the award amount along with interest thereon is lying with the learned Tribunal in the form of cheques which have not been presented for encashment. Appellant No.1 is directed to deposit fresh cheques along with interest up to the date of deposit with the learned Tribunal within 30 days.