DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SWINDER GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the award dated 10. 4. 2007, whereby the Tribunal has held appellant and driver of the appellant jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award amount.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5th October, 1990, the deceased Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill was travelling in a three wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL 1 R 1053 from India International Centre to u. K. Embassy, when a DTC bus bearing registration no. DHF-3671 being driven by the driver of the said bus in a rash and negligent manner hit the TSR of Shri sukhdev Singh Gill, as a result of which, Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill was thrown out of the TSR and suffered serious injuries.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant states that in the earlier order dated 19. 12. 2001, passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has clearly held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Counsel for the appellant contends that PW-5 was the only eye witness to the accident and in his deposition he has stated that the bus was not at fault as the bus was being driven by its driver at a very normal speed. Counsel states that the said witness PW-5 also stated that he cannot say who was responsible for causing the said accident. Counsel for the appellant thus contends that once the said evidence was relied upon by the Tribunal in the previous order, therefore, it could not have given any contrary findings based on the same very evidence. Counsel for the appellant further contends that admittedly, the TSR was coming from the side lane at a high speed of 60 k. m. per hour, therefore, no fault can be found with the driver of the bus who was on the main road and was driving the bus at a normal speed of 30 k. m. per hour. Counsel for the appellant further contends that without establishing negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle no award could have been passed by the Tribunal against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant further contends that even the driver of the said TSR was not impleaded by the claimants respondents and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the composite negligence on the part of the driver of the said TSR. Counsel for the appellant contends that the award of the tribunal is thus absolutely perverse and irrational.