DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. T RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the appeal filed by DelhiTransport Corporation as well the cross-objections filed by the claimants. Thefacts of the case, briefly slated, are that the DTC Bus No. DHP 2018 camefrom Westend Colony side and took a turn on Rao Tula Ram Marg on 6.12.75at about 10.45 a.m. and th-re at the turning hit the deceased who was travel.ling on a bicycle, as a result where of the deceased was thrown at some distanceand received injuries including the head injury which later proved fatal. Thecase of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the bus was being drivenat a very high speed, rashly and negligently by the driver one Shri KultarSiogh of the appellant. Strangely enough he has not been impleaded as a partyto the appeal. Only possible explanation appears to be that this gentlemanhas since gone abroad and is not traceable and this fact is revealed in thestatement of Sardool Singh the Traffic Supervisor of the appellant which wasrecorded before the Tribunal. In any event, this infirmity need not stand inthe way because no such objection has been taken by the respondents in theircross-objections also.

(2.) I have perused the judgment and have also been taken throughthe evidence recorded before the Tribunal. I am in agreement with theTribunal when it observes that in the absence of any cogent direct evidence,the circumstantial evidence plays a role of great importance and theTribunal has to rely upon the same. I do not find any force in the groundthat because the criminal court had acquitted the driver, the civil courtalso should have acquitted him. In fact, if the criminal court convicts thedriver such a suggestion could be attached considerable importance because theevidence required to convict a person of a criminal offence -must be such aswould go to prove the. guilt of the offender beyond resonable doubt whilesame standard of proof may not be called for while examining the case forassessing the civil liability. Apart from this no other argument has been advanced to sustain the challenge to the finding that the vehicle at the time ofaccident was being driven rashly and negligently.

(3.) The next challenge in the appeal is to the quantum of compensation where the Counsel states that no accounts were produced nor any documentary evidence placed on record by the widow or brother-in-law of thedeceased to corroborate their oral testimony that the deceased was earningRs. 1000.00 per month. The appellant has further challenged the Tribunal'sfinding and the Counsel has asserted that even the income of Rs. 500.00 whichhas been accepted by the Tribunal is arbitrary and not based on any documentary evidence. On this point, I must refer to the cross-objections whereinheirs of the deceased have also challenged the findings, mainly on three.counts-(1) that the income of Rs. 500.00which has been accepted by theTribunal is not based on any material or any legal evidence and is totallyarbitrary; (2) that the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of theaccident and a multiplier of 23 should have been applied taking the expectancyof life of the deceased upto 70 years; and (3) that the Tribunal should haveawarded pendente life interest.