DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ARUNA SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of appeal filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (FAO 11/92) as well as cross objections filed by the respondents/claimants against the judgment dated 3rd December, 1991 of Shri Jaswant Singh, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Delhi. The respondents/claimants had filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby they claimed compensation on account of the death of Shri Jagjot Sawhney. The respondents are' the widow of the deceased, his minor children and theparents. The minors, respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother, Mrs. Aruna Sawhney who is respondent I to the appeal. The amount claimed by the respondents/claimants was.Rs. 15 lakhs.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that on 12th August, 1987 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased Jagjot Sawhney was riding his scooter No. DBV 7694 with one Harish Vij sitting in the pillion seat of the scooter. The deceased was going at a slow speed on the correct side of the road and after crossing the road from the Madras Hotel Bus stop side i.e the road emerging from opposite Rivoli Cinema and he had covered few yards on Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, a person came over to the road all of a sudden from the left of the scooter of the deceased. The deceased swerved his scooter towards his right to avoid impact with the said person. In that process the deceased was hit violently by bus No. DLP 1562 driven at a fast speed by the driver, Shri Jai Pal Singh. The impact was so great that the pillion rider was thrown off the scooter and he received injuries. The deceased was dragged by the bus to a considerable distance along with thecooter and he received severe head injuries. His scooter was also extensively damaged and after hitting the scooter the offending bus hit against the DTC bus 'Q' shelter located on the left side of the road and then came to a halt. The shelter was badly damaged as a result of the impact. The deceased was removed to R.M.L. Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries within 12 hours of the accident. The respondents/claimants further averred that the deceased was a qualified person and was working as Supervisor, X- Ray with M/s I G E (India) Ltd on a salary of Rs. 5499.00 per month. He was also entitled to the benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, pension etc which go with the job. It was further stated that in case the deceased had not met his end in this accident he would have risen to earn Rs. 8,000.00 per month within next two or three years and by the time of his retirement he-would have been drawing a salary of Rs.15,000.00 per month. The respondent/claimants also pleaded the history of longevity in their family which is evident that the parents of the deceased are alive.

(3.) The appellants, Delhi Transport Corporation filed the written statement and took various objections such as that the application was not filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the deceased did not receive injuries which resulted in his death. On merits it was denied that the deceased was working as Supervisor and earning a salary' of Rs. 5499.00 per month. The factum as well as date and place of accident was, however, not denied. It was also admitted that bus no. DLP 1562 was involved in the accident and it was being driven by the driver of the appellant. The appellant further claimed that the bus was at a slow speed and on their own admission as referred to in the claim petition the accident took place because the deceased went over to the wrong side of the road with a view to avoid impact with a pedestrian and hit the bus despite the fact that the driver of the bus swerved the vehicle to his extreme left just close to the footpath. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: