PREM DEVI PANDEY Vs. DAYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the legal, representatives of the late Shri Ram Partap Pandey, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 10th November, 1967 at 5-15 P.M. on Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The appellants are the widow, five daughters and the parents of the deceased Shri Ram Partap Pandey. The respondents are Shri Dayal Singh, the driver of the bus belonging to the Delhi Transport Undertaking which was involved in the accident and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was then running the bus. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation and others. Apparently, the liability which fell on the Delhi Municipal Corporation at the time of the accident has now fallen on the Delhi Transport Corporation by operation of subsequent legislation changes.

(2.) The only serious question agitated before me on behalf of the petitioners and the cross-objector is in relation to the quantum of damages that has to be awarded. The facts of the case regarding the accident are not in dispute at all. Those facts are, that the deceased was going on a bicycle on Prithvi Raj Road near House No. 37. Bus No. D.L.P. No. 1115 came from behind him and ran him down. It seems the bus went out of control and after hitting the deceased, went on to the footpath and hit some coal tar drums after which it crashed into a tree. The deceased at time of his death was earning about Rs. 490.00 monthly and was 42 years old, he was the bread earner and supporter of his family consisting of his wife and five daughters. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

(3.) The quantum actually granted by the Tribunal was only Rs. 22,717.00 together with costs and future interest at six per cent per annum payable only if the money was not deposited within two months of the award. The only question agitated before me is the quantum of the damages. Although, in the cross objections the decision of the Tribunal was also challenged on the merits, no real attempt has been made to persuade me that the decision is incorrect regarding the factum of negligence.