GURBAKSHI RAM Vs. CHANDGRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Award dated August 27,1981 passed by Shri R.K. Sain, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, by which the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant Gurbaksh Rai filed a petition under Section 110-A of.the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents on the plea that on 24th September, 1971, at about 10 p.m. he was travelling in a Mobile Court Van No. DLP-4081 driven by Chandgi Ram, respondent No. I and it was coming from Alipur side towards Delhi. The appellant along with his officers had arrested few persons at G.T.Road for committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and at that time the appellant was escorting all those arrested persons to Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. He was sitting on the left side of the driver but when the van had covered about 5 miles from Alipur side towards Delhi, it was alleged, that the accused started crying, shouting and creating nuisance inside the van. The appellant in order to listen to the arrested persons for the purpose of having a talk with them and to avoid distraction to the driver got up from his seat and walked to the back of the bus. When he moved in the bus and had come in the middle of it, then the floor of the bus suddenly broke up with the result that the right leg of the appellant came out from the floor of the bus and came into contact with the road. The appellant allegedly received multiple injuries as a result of his leg striking the road. It was contended that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the respondents. Respondent No. I did not check the Van properly to find out, whether, the same was road-worthy or not. Respondent No. 2, i.e. Registrar, Delhi High Court, it was alleged, was equally negligent and careless as he did not care to look after the proper maintenance of the van. It was the duty of the respondents to have regular inspection of the vehicle so that it did not endanger the safety of passengers in question. The registered owner of the vehicle was the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, respondent No. 3 herein. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded in the claim petition. The vehicle was, however, owned by Delhi Administration i.e. Respondent No. 4, who has also been impleaded as a party. It was further alleged that the accident was caused on account of negligence and careless act on the part of respondents I and 2 though respondents 3 and 4 were also stated to be equally liable for riot providing road-worthy and proper vans to the staff. Thus, all the respondents were individually and vicariously liable for the tort committed by respondent No. I who was their employee. The appellant, as a consequence, received multiple injuries and compound fracture on his right leg besides lacerated wounds on the leg. He bleed profusely from these injuries and same have caused great pain, shock, agony and mental torture. The wound was immediately stitched in the hospital and plaster was applied on the fractured leg which was alleged to be reduced and settled down before the application of the first plaster. The plaster was removed on the next day as the bleeding could not be stopped and the fractured bone was not correct. The appellant had to be plastered again and to undergo X-rays which reflected that the bone was not united properly. The leg remained completely under plaster till 30th January, 1978 and even after the removal of the plaster the appellant was advised complete rest for a period of one month. The appellant allegedly was admitted in hospital on the date of accident and remained there as indoor patient till 7th October, 1971. He was confined to bed as he was not in a position to move nor he was advised to do so upto 29th February, 1972. He spent huge amount on his treatment, medicines and diet etc. and was likely to spend considerable amount in future as well. The injuries caused permanent disability and it was apprehended that the appellant might not be able to live an active life in future as well. The appellant was working as Inspector in Anti-Corruption Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi, on a monthly salary of Rs. 700.00 . In the above background, a sum of Rs. one lakh was claimed as compensation.

(3.) The respondents contested the petition. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the appellant had no cause of action against him and he was not liable to pay any compensation inasmuch as the appellant did not suffer any injury on account of any act attributable to him. The alleged injury, if any, was sustained on account of his own act and conduct and due to his own negligence. The appellant, it is contended, did not board the van in question either with the consent or permission of respondent No. I or any other officer owning the said vehicle or Incharge thereof at the relevant time. He was self invited licensee/person and, therefore, was not entitled to claim any compensation from respondent No. 1. The said respondent further alleged that he was on duty and acting in the course of his employment under his employer and, therefore, was not liable. The appellant thrust his foot by force while shouting at the accused persons whom he was carrying and it was out of his own initiative and volition as well as negligence that he put his foot in such a manner that he damaged the floor of the van which gave way under his violent pressure. Respondent No. 2 maintained that the claim was outside the meaning, object and scope of provisions of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and there was no cause of action against the said respondent. The appellant suffered due to his own carelessness and negligence.