DTC Vs. LATA MANSUKHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant-Delhi Transport Corporation seeks to assail the judgment and award dated 30 th May, 2003 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.

(2.) The facts may be briefly recapitulated as follows. On 18.07.1999, one Mohan Mansukhani, aged about 55 years, was going from his house in Model Town towards the bus stand, after crossing the G.T. Karnal Road, when he was hit by bus No.DBP-6048 on the road leading to the bus stand. Allegedly the said bus was being driven by the respondent No.5, Angrez Singh at a very fast speed, recklessly and negligently and it hit the deceased from behind causing fatal injuries. The respondents No.1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, being his widow and three daughters, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the untimely demise of their bread earner. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced before it held that the accident which had resulted in the unfortunate death of the deceased was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the respondent No.5. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the testimony of PW3 Smt. Lata Mansukhani, calculated the total loss of dependency of the respondents No.1 to 4 to be in the sum of 6,45,348/-, and after adding the non-pecuniary damages to the said amount awarded a sum of 6,70,348/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The appellant as the owner of the offending bus was directed to pay the award amount.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the award primarily on two grounds. The first is that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased met with his death due to his own acts of omission and commission, in that the deceased due to his exuberance attempted to board the bus before it had been parked at the stand for boarding by the commuters. Mr. Aggarwal contended that the negligence of the deceased thus contributed to his own death and to that extent the award amount deserved to be scaled down.