DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PUSHPA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kewal Krishan Chopra aged about 39 years died as a result of an accident on May 26, 1963. He left surviving him a widow and three minor children. The accident, it is stated, occurred when Chopra was going at 6.30 p.m. on his scooter. He took a turn to the right from the New Market Road on to the Military Road. A bus belonging to the Delhi Transport Undertaking was coming down Military Road. Chopra's scooter was hit from behind by the bus and he was crushed to death. A report was lodged with the police and a case was registered against Joginder Singh, driver. The heirs and dependants of Chopra, namely, his widow and children then filed a petition under section 110/110A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00. The contention of the petitioners was that the bus belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Transport Undertaking was so rashly and negligently driven by its driver Joginder Singh that it resulted in an accident in which Chopra lost his life. The respondent in the petition were the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Delhi Transport Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation and Joginder Singh, driver. The claim as made was resisted. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of Joginder Singh but in fact it was on account of the negligence of Chopra that the accident occurred. On the pleading of the parties the Tribunal framed five issues. These are as under :

(2.) The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the petitioners. On a conspectus of the evidence it came to the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to a net compensation of Rs. 65,000.00. Both parties to the matter appealed to this court. Petitioners before the Tribunal in their appeal (F.A.O. No. 227-D of 1964) contended that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the amount of compensation found to be due were not admissible or permissible whereas the Municipal Corporation and the Transport Undertaking in their appeal (F.A.O. No. 192-D of 1964) contended that the case of contributory negligence of Chopra stood fully proved and the Tribunal wrongly rejected it. The Municipal Corporation and the Transport Undertaking also averred that the quantum of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal was not correctly fixed.

(3.) Both the appeals came up before a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeals were disposed of by a common judgment. Our learned brother agreed with the Tribunal that Joginder Singh did drive the bus in question rashly and negligently which resulted in the accident. Our learned brother also accepted the basis of the calculations of the Tribunal in fixing the compensation. He, however, came to the conclusion that two deductions made by the Tribunal from the compensation arrived at were not admissible. He also held that Chopra could be held guilty of contributory negligence. In consequence our learned brother added back the deductions which according to him were wrongly made by the Tribunal and held that the compensation admissible would be Rs. 74,000.00. For contributory negligence of Chopra a somewhat rough and ready method was adopted and 1/3rd was deducted resulting in Rs. 50,000.00 being awarded to the heirs of the deceased. The Delhi Transport Undertaking has since ceased to exist and has been substituted by Delhi Transport Corporation. The Delhi Transport Undertaking is no longer a department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Therefore, the Delhi Transport Corporation has filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned single Judge. What is challenged is the finding of the learned single Judge on issues 2, 3, 4 and 5.