MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 23rd December, 2011 + MAC APP. 1172/2011 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. ...... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate with MR. Shadab Khan, Advocate. Versus MAMTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.23609/2011 (exemption) in MAC APP. 1172/2011 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL.23611/2011 (delay in re-filing) in MAC APP. 1172/2011 1. There is a delay of seven days in re-filing the Appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of seven days in re-filing the Appeal is condoned. MAC APP. 1172/2011 3. The Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSTRC) impugns the judgment dated 07.07.2011 whereby a compensation of ` 9,71,000/- was awarded by the Motor MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 2 of 6 Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the death of one Pradeep Sharma. 4. Pradeep Sharma was working as an Assistant Accountant with M/s. Satyadeep Engineering Company Limited. He was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident which took place on 20.07.2008. The Tribunal found that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of bus number UP-21N- 2651 by its driver Rajbir Sharma. 5. The Tribunal observed that the deceased was working as an Assistant Accountant with M/s. Satyadeep Engineering Company Limited and was getting a salary of ` 6,500/- per month. Though, it was established that the deceased was holding a permanent post, yet no benefit of future prospects was given. The Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased, as the deceased’s mother and his young widow were dependent on his income; applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as ` 9,36,000/-. After adding notional sum under conventional heads, the overall compensation of ` 9,71,000/- was awarded. 6. The impugned judgment is challenged on the following grounds:- (i) Negligence on the part of the driver of the bus owned by the Appellant was not established; and MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 3 of 6 (ii) The quantum of compensation is exorbitant and excessive. 7. In order to prove the negligence, the Claimants examined one Amit Kumar Mishra as PW-2. He deposed that on 20.07.2008 at about 9:30 P.M. he, Lalit, Pawan and Pradeep Sharma (the deceased) were proceeding to their houses after watching a movie at Pacific Mall. He and Lalit were on one motorcycle and Pradeep and Pawan were on another. When they reached in front of Sahibabad Subzi Mandi, a U.P. Roadways Bus bearing number UP-21N-2651 came from the side of Delhi at a very high speed. While the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, it struck against the motorcycle of Pradeep Sharma as a result of which he fell down on the road and suffered serious injuries. He and Lalit stopped the TSR and removed Pradeep Sharma to Narender Mohan Hospital where he was declared brought dead. 8. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that the bus number UP-21N-2651 came from Delhi side and hit the deceased’s motorcycle. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that infact the deceased had struck against the earlier said bus from behind and there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 4 of 6 10. R3W1 Rajbir Sharma, the driver of the bus testified that while overtaking another private bus, the deceased struck his motorcycle against rear side of bus number UP-21N-2651. In cross-examination R3W1 admitted that he was facing trial in a criminal case registered in respect of this accident. He admitted that he had not placed on record copy of the complaint made to his department regarding false involvement of the bus. He admitted that he did not lodge any complaint to higher police officials regarding his false implication. 11. The learned counsel for the Appellant drew my attention to the Technical Inspection Report of bus number UP-21N-2651 in support of her contention that there were scratches on both the sides of the bus. Rear bumper from left side was damaged. These scratches do not lead us anywhere. If I go by what is contended on behalf of the Appellant, there could not have been any damage either on the left side or on the right side of the bus. The glass of the driver’s window was also found to be broken at the time of the Technical Inspection carried out by the Inspection Officer of UPSRTC. It is no where stated in the Inspection Report that there was any fresh damage. No suggestion was given to PW-2 that the accident had not taken place in the manner as stated by him in his examination-in-chief and Pradeep Sharma (the motorcyclist himself) had struck against the bus from behind. In the circumstances, much reliance cannot be placed upon the driver’s testimony who MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 5 of 6 obviously wanted to save his skin. On the test of preponderance of probabilities it is established that there was culpable negligence on the part of the drive of bus number UP-21N- 2651. 12. As regards the quantum of compensation, I have already observed that the deceased was a young boy, aged about 22 years was working as Assistant Accountant and was in a stable employment with M/s. Satyadeep Engineering Company Limited. The Wages-cum- Salary Register from March, 2008 to July, 2008, Attendance Register from February, 2008 to July, 2008, PF record, EPF slips were proved before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the deceased’s future prospects, but the same is not material as there is no Appeal by the Claimants. 13. Considering the widow and the deceased’s mother as the dependents, the Tribunal rightly deducted one-third of the deceased’s income towards his personal living expenses and applied the multiplier of 18. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss of estate, `10,000/- towards loss of consortium and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The overall compensation of ` 9,71,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which by any standard cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. MAC APP 1172/2011 Page 6 of 6 14. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is dismissed in limini. CM APPL.23608/2011 (stay) and 23610/2011 (delay) 15. In view of the above order, these applications are dismissed. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2011 vk