PRAKASHWATI Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise from the same order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this common order. F.A.O.No.417/2002 is the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation for the death of Mr.Baldev Singh, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants 2 to 5, who died in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No.1 and being driven by respondent No.2. The second appeal is filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. A few facts relevant for deciding tis appeal are : One Mr.Baldev Singh was employed as Head Constable with the Delhi Police; that on the intervening night of 10/11th September, 1999 at about 00.05 a.m. when he was waiting for a bus at Najafgarh road in front of fish market near T point Uttam Nagar and was standing besides a DTC bus parked alongside the road a little ahead of Uttam Nagar bus terminal, another DTC bus bearing No.DL1P 9418 being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn and in contravention of traffic rules came at a very fast speed and sandwiched the deceased between the parked bus and the aforesaid speeding DTC bus. After causing accident, the DTC bus is alleged to have fled from the scene. The deceased received severe injuries and was immediately removed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. FIR was registered at PS Uttam Nagar against the driver of the bus. The deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death, his date of birth being 12th March, 1962. Deceased at the time of his death was drawing a salary of approximately Rs.9,000.00 p.m. Claiming that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25 lacs from the respondents.

(2.) In the joint written statement filed by the respondents, it was denied by them that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Respondents have in fact even denied the involvement of the bus in the accident. It is submitted in the written statement by them that no accident had taken place on the date and time at the place mentioned in the claim petition and the question, therefore, of paying any compensation to the appellants did not arise. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) After the evidence was led by the parties before the Tribunal and arguments were heard, the Tribunal by the impugned award held Issue No.1 in favour of the appellant. It was held by the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No.1. While deciding issue No.2, it was held by the Tribunal that as the deceased had died because of the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the appellants who were the legal heirs of the deceased, were entitled to compensation from the respondents. Taking income of the deceased at Rs.7.226.00 p.m. and taking the age of the deceased as 40 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and awarded compensation of Rs.14,56,896.00 in favour of the appellants which included a sum of Rs.50,000.00 already paid by way of interim compensation. As already mentioned above, this award has now been challenged by filing the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have also filed appeal against the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The respondent has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants. Along with the appeal, the respondent DTC has also field an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence.