DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal , the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 10. 10. 2006 whereby an award of Rs. 4,80,000/-" was passed by the tribunal in favour of claimant/respondent. Brief summary of the facts to deal with the contentions raised by the parties are as under:-On 11. 12. 1992 Shri Ram Mehar Singh, driver was performing his duty on DTC Bus no. DBP-6233 from Punjabi Bagh to Lajpat Nagar at Ring Road. He was driving the bus very carefully and cautiously on the correct side of the road. At about 5:40pm when the bus reached Palika Bhavan, R. K. Puram, one pedestrian came running from the central verge/divider without taking care of the flow of the traffic on the road and allegedly fell against the right rear side of the bus and received injuries. The injured was admitted by the driver in the safdarjung Hospital on the same day i. e. 11. 12. 1992. thereafter, the injured was discharged from hospital and was readmitted in the same hospital on 04. 01. 1993. He ultimately expired on 10. 01. 1993 at 8:45am.

(2.) MR. Sumeet Pushkarna, counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the tribunal primarily on two grounds. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant is that no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was established on record. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the site plan, which was filed along with the FIR to contend that from the site plan, it would be evident that the deceased was a pedestrian and hit himself with the rear side of the bus after jumping from the central verge of the road. Counsel for the appellant further contends that except the driver of the offending vehicle, there is no other eye witness to the said incident and therefore, the tribunal committed a grave error by not attaching any importance to the testimony of the driver who was the sole eye witness to the incident. Even the criminal court had acquitted the driver of the offending vehicle after the failure of the prosecution to prove the negligence on the part of the driver. Assailing the impugned award, counsel for the appellant submits that at best the driver of the bus could have been held liable for contributory negligence in causing the accident not solely responsible for the negligent act. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the deceased pedestrian had not taken care of the surroundings on the main ring road and had jumped from the central verge and hit his head to the rear side of the bus in question. In support of his proposition, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:-1)Mohd. Hanif and Anr. Vs H. P. Road Transport Corporation and Ors.- (2006) 2 SCC (cri) 293. 2)Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs Laxman Jyee and Anr.- (2003) 8 SCC 731. 3)Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors.-II (2006) ACC 36 (SC)

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant also found fault with the multiplier of 15 as applied by the tribunal and also for granting benefit of future prospects to the deceased without their being any evidence on record to this effect.