Hazra & Anr v. Satyam Singh & Ors

1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 05.02.2019 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”] passed by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 1.[1] The challenge in the present Appeal is for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in the sum of Rs.9,35,000/- along with 9% interest per annum.

2. The challenge in the present Appeal by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is two-fold. Firstly, that the deduction which was made as 30% towards contributory negligence was wrongly deducted. Secondly, that the minimum wages of Delhi should have been applied and not those of Uttar Pradesh in view of the fact that the deceased was residing and working in the State of Delhi.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, relying on the Impugned Judgment, submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal qua contributory negligence has wrongly been set out since the deceased did have a driving licence but the same was lost.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the mother of the deceased [PW-1] was cross-examined and that she deposed that the deceased was holding a valid driving licence but the same was lost. It further sets out that no FIR was lodged regarding the lost driving licence. No other document was produced on record, and thus, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased did not have a driving licence and deducted a percentage in the form of contributory negligence. 4.[1] The Impugned Judgment also sets out a finding that given the injuries sustained coupled with the cause of death, it is sufficient to conclude that the deceased was driving without a helmet. Reliance has been placed on the postmortem report in this behalf. 4.[2] It is apposite to extract relevant portions of paragraph 13.[1] of the Impugned Award, in this regard, below: “13.1. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 has cross examined the witness on the aspect of DL of the deceased. PW[1] Hazra is mother of deceased and has admitted that her son / deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of this accident and was holding a DL to drive vehicle at the time of accident but the same has lost somewhere, however, she has not lodged any FIR regarding lost of purse/DL of deceased. Admittedly, police have not seized DL of deceased to prove that he was driving on the main road with DL and even the family members have also not proved that he was holding any DL to drive his Scooty. In the absence of proving of DL of deceased, it shall be presumed that deceased was driving his Scooty without DL. Section 2(10) of M.V. Act has prescribed necessity of having DL to drive the vehicle and without DL driving is an offence by the virtue of Section 3/181 of M.V. Act. As such, driving of the vehicle without DL is definitely a contributory negligence. Besides it, the postmortem report of deceased which is part of DAR has proved that the main area of sustaining injuries by the deceased was facial area and most of injuries were sustained on head and chest and the cause of death was "shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to head and chest produced by blunt force impact". The main area of sustaining injuries coupled with cause of death has proved that the injuries suffered by deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and such injuries were possible only if the deceased was also driving without helmet. Though parties have not led any witness on this aspect, yet postmortem report is the document of petitioners also and this document can be very well used to draw inference. In fact, the driving of vehicle without DL and that too without wearing helmet on public place is an offence and is definitely an invitation for an accident and is definitely a contributory negligence of deceased. Even the site plan of the spot of accident prepared by the police has also proved that deceased was also not driving his scooty in his lane. Now-a-days, it has become a tendency to violate traffic rules which are meant for safety and welfare of public and commuters are not following these rules despite punishment and road accidents are increasing on account of such traffic faults, due to such faults which are contributory to these accidents are to be dealt with strictly. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that 30% of the award amount of the petitioners has to be deducted towards contributory negligence of the deceased, out of head, of loss of dependency.” [Emphasis supplied]

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has not filed any document before the learned Tribunal in support of its contention that the deceased held a valid driving licence, and no document has been placed on record before this Court either. In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the finding recorded with regard to contributory negligence, and on this aspect, the award is sustained.

6. The only other ground for challenge that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is on the finding that the minimum wages of the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable since no evidence was produced with regard to the income of the deceased.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that he had produced the Voter ID Card and other relevant documents before the learned Tribunal to show that the deceased was residing in Delhi. Reliance is placed on the Voter ID Card of 2009 as well as the Bank Passbook in this behalf, which have been annexed along with the documents as PW1/1 Colly.

8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the documents that were placed on record were not of the deceased but of the legal representatives or other family members. No documents evidencing that the deceased was working or residing in Delhi have been placed on record.

9. A perusal of the documents which have been placed on record reflects that the documents are Ex. PW1/1 Colly and Ex. PW1/B(OSR) of Ms. Hazra and Mr. Nizam as well as a passbook of Ms. Hazra and Mr. Nizam. On a query put by the Court, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has clarified that these people are the Appellants, parents of the deceased. Thus, clearly no document in support of its contention that the deceased was working and living in Delhi has been placed on record.

10. The learned Tribunal has given its finding that the address of the Appellants/Claimants which were set out in the Voter ID Card pertaining to Seemapuri, Delhi was verified by the Investigating Officer, however the Investigating Officer’s Report has proved that both the Appellants/Claimants were residents of Uttar Pradesh. It is further stated that the address of the deceased was also pertaining to Uttar Pradesh along with his post mortem report as well as his Medico-Legal Certificate. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award is set out below: “7.3. Determination of Income of deceased: After deciding the age and multiplier, the income of the deceased has to be determined. It is alleged that the deceased was working, but there is no proof of loss of earning, accordingly, it shall be considered that deceased was earning as per minimum wages prevalent in UP on the date of accident which was Rs.7,215/- p.m. Though current address of the claimant No.1 is pertaining to New Seema Puri, Delhi, yet IO has verified addresses of both claimants at Jawahar Park, Sahibabad, UP which has proved that both the claimants were permanent resident of UP. Even the address of the deceased was also pertaining to UP as per his MLC and Post mortem, due to minimum wages prevalent UP has to be considered.” [Emphasis supplied]

11. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the challenge to the Impugned Judgment on this aspect also cannot be sustained.

12. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J AUGUST 13, 2025/ ha