DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. VIVEK PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is second round of proceedings before this Court arising out of the same claim case presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the respondent. The petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) is aggrieved with orders dated 16.09.2014 and 21.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal in the course of proceedings arising out of execution case no. 43/2013 taken out by the respondent for the reason, it having paid 50% of the compensation awarded, has been called upon to pay the balance as well, with reference to certain observations of this Court in (para 4 of) the judgment dated 03.09.2012 in FAO NO.161/2000.

(2.) The respondent had instituted a claim case on 30.05.1985 before the Tribunal which was registered as suit No.86. The claim case was decided by judgment dated 17.12.1999 by the Tribunal awarding compensation in the sum of 4,71,240/ - with interest at 12% per annum in favour of the respondent holding the drivers and owners of three vehicles, all buses, bearing registration No.DEP 4579, DLP 82 and DEP 8757 to be jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal, however, found contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the said vehicles and, therefore, apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50% on the part of DTC and the balance 50% to be recoverable from the owner and driver of bus No. DEP 4579. It may be added that DEP 4579 was a private bus while the other buses were of DTC.

(3.) The claimant (the respondent) brought FAO 161/2000 which was pressed with the restricted prayer that since the liability of tort feasors were joint and several, he should have been granted the right to recover the compensation from any of the tort feasors. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 03.09.2012 noted that 50% of the compensation had already been paid by DTC in discharge of its liability in terms of judgment of the Tribunal. In this view, the Court made the following observations and directions in (para 4 of) the judgment dated 03.09.2012