DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal from order has been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation, along with its driver against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 15th July, 1972, by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,653.00 to the respondent against the appellants.

(2.) The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on 12th July, 1966 in Dev Nagar, Delhi, and the bus, DLP 213, involved in the accident belonging to the first appellant was being driven by the second appellant. The bus is alleged to be driven at a fast speed and in a most negligent and rash manner and the rear left wheel of the bus passed over the feet of the respondent before me, who was riding a cycle and he received serious injuries. The medical report shows that his feet were crushed and he received permanent disability. He was at that time 21 years of age and was drawing a salary of Rs. 130.50 per month. He made a claim for Rs. 30,000.00 including Rs. 2,000.00 on account of expenses and treatment. The claim petition was contested on behalf of the appellants, who inter alia, contended that the offending bus was driven on the correct side of the road at a speed of three to four miles per hour. The respondent was coming on a cycle on the left side of the bus and seeing the bus slowing down wanted to overtake it from the left side, but on account of the wrong judgment he struck against the pavement and fell down on the pavement, when his foot was entangled with the chain of the cycle and hurt. It was further contended that neither the cycle nor the cyclist touched any portion of the bus and the injuries sustained by the respondent were on account of the fall from his cycle. In this way, the liability was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) The Tribunal below answered issue No. 1 against the appellants and held that no notice was necessary in the claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In answer to issue No. 2, it held that the injuries had been caused as a result of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the second appellant, who was acting in the course of employment of the first appellant. In answer to issue No. 3, the Tribunal considered the entire circumstances of the case and held that the respondent was entitled to recover only a sum of Rs. 6,653.00. which was accordingly awarded. Mr. D. R. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants, has challenged the findings of the Tribunal on issues 2 and 3. The respondent has filed a cross-objection claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation. At the close of the arguments the respondent through his counsel stated that he did not wish to press the cross-objections.