GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, it is proposed to decide both the aforesaid appeals as common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals.

(2.) THE concise facts leading to the filing of the appeals are that on 11.07.2005 one Naresh Kumar met with a road accident while crossing the road at the Gopalpur Wazirabad Crossing, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, when he was hit by a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HR-62-0359 being driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently, and in complete violation of the traffic rules. On account of the forceful impact, the said Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") fell at some distance on the road and sustained fatal injuries. A criminal case bearing FIR No.341/2005 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Timarpur against the driver of the offending bus on the statement of an eye-witness, Head Constable Ramphal. A suit bearing No.294/06 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs for the untimely demise of the deceased in the aforesaid accident was filed by his legal representatives, viz. his widow, four sons and father, which culminated in the passing of the impugned judgment and award whereby and whereunder the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,85,216/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) to the legal representatives of the deceased payable by Haryana Roadways alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved therefrom, the Haryana Roadways filed an appeal, being MAC. APP. No.249/2007 for scaling down of the amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and a cross-appeal thereto was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the same.

(3.) THE second contention raised by Mr. Rangi is that the deceased himself was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident, and this factor was not considered by the learned Tribunal while computing the award amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the deceased himself had crossed the road negligently, inasmuch as there was no zebra crossing at the place of the accident. It deserves to be mentioned at this juncture that the second contention has not been raised in the grounds of appeal at all and the words "contributory negligence" are not mentioned therein. All that is stated is that the accident took place entirely due to the negligence of the cyclist himself.