DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of two appeals, F.A.O. No. 141 of 1980 filed by D.T.C. and F.A.O. No. 309 of 1980 filed by Ram Kumar, injured. Both these appeals arise out of the award given by Mr. H.P. Bagchi, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, whereby a sum of Rs. 56,773.00 was awarded as compensation to the respondent injured Ram Kumar for the injuries alleged to have been suffered by him in an accident on 4th December, 1975 with D.T.C. bus. In addition, the respondent injured has been granted interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. Both D.T.C. and Ram Kumar feeling aggrieved have come up before this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the lower court file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings.

(2.) Facts in the matter are not more or less disputed. It is not disputed before me that the accident took place on 4th December, 1975 in which Ram Kumar, respondent injured, was run over by the D.T.C. bus while alighting from the bus. It is not disputed before me that Ram Kumar respondent was a lawful passenger of the bus. His monthly earnings were Rs. 540.00. Similarly, the finding of the lower court that monthly income of the respondent Ram Kumar at the time of the accident was Rs. 540.00 has not been disputed before me. The age of the injured-respondent was 46 years at the time of accident and he is alive today are other facts which have not been disputed before me by any of the parties. It is keeping in view all these facts that these appeals have to be disposed of.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel for the D.T.C. is that it was contributory negligence of Ram Kumar which had led to the accident and as such D.T.C. was not liable. As against it, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent Ram Kumar that the accident took place due to sheer rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and as such D.T.C. would very much be liable and it has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent injured Ram Kumar that the lower court was not justified in choosing the multiplier of 10 only after arriving at the probable age of expectancy of the injured to be about 70 years. It is further urged that the Tribunal was not correct in deducting 50 per cent of Rs. 540.00 earnings of the respondent injured for the first year and 20 per cent for the subsequent years while arriving at the figure of compensation to be paid to the injured.