GURDEEP SINGH NARULA Vs. MALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A.O. 187 of 1983 has been filed by the owner of bus No. DLP 6619, the alleged offending vehicle which caused the accident on 26.8.1979 resulting in the death of Sarti Devi. F.A.O. 140 of 1983 is filed by the driver of the bus. The said bus was under contract with the D.T.C. and plying on route No. 740. The D.T.C. enters into the contract with private bus operators for providing additional transport facilities in Delhi. Under the contract the maintenance of the bus and the liability of accident rests with the private operator. In this case it was on the appellant.

(2.) When the claim petition was filed by the heirs of the deceased in the Tribunal, the appellant put in his appearance but did not file the written statement and thereafter did not prosecute the proceedings. Even before me in this appeal neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. There is an urgency in the disposal of this appeal because in spite of the order of this court the appellant did not deposit the amount with the Tribunal. The claimants are thus deprived of the compensation awarded to them. I do not, therefore, propose to dismiss the appeal in default but proceed for its disposal on merits. The counsel for the respondents has taken me through the evidence on record. The version of the claimants is that the deceased lady who was travelling in the bus DLP 6619 was trying to alight from the bus when the bus driver started the bus resulting in the fall of the lady and her eventual death. This is supported by the postmortem report, eye-witnesses, F.I.R., the site plan and mechanical inspection of the bus. The version of the driver of the vehicle who is the appellant in F.A.O. 140 of 1983 has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 18. The driver submitted that the deceased lady jumped out of the running bus and was thus negligent and responsible for road injury and eventual death. The Tribunal found that no person in his senses would try to jump out of the running bus with so much of luggage in her hand. Public witness 1, Bharat Singh and Public witness 3, Ram Singh, who were about ten years at that time simultaneously got down from the bus which shows that the bus was in a stationary condition. The version of the driver (and that of the owner) was thus found by the Tribunal to be untruthful and, therefore, the Tribunal rejected it. I entirely agree with the appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal. The evidence on record fully justifies the finding that bus No. DLP 6619 was responsible for causing the accident and the eventual death of the deceased lady.

(3.) That brings us to the question of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 55.000.00 as compensation in this case. This is worked out on the basis of Rs. 200.00 p.m. towards the domestic services, such as cooking, looking after the children etc. In addition the Tribunal found that she had an income of Rs. 300.00 per month from tailoring work. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 6,000.00 as compensation for loss of consortium and Rs. 4.000.00 for the loss of expectation of life of the deceased. The Tribunal further ordered that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to Rs. 5,000.00 and, therefore, directed that the balance amount of compensation, that is, Rs. 50,000.00 should be recovered jointly and severally from the two appellants herein, that is, the driver and the owner of the bus in question. The owner of the offending vehicle had not filed the written statement and did not produce any evidence. He did not also produce the original policy which he ought to have produced to show that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. In these circumstances, since the deceased was a passenger in the bus, the liability of the insurance company would be Rs. 5.000.00 which was the amount of liability fixed under the law at the time of the accident. The Tribunal had directed that the amount of compensation should be paid within two months, failing which the claimants were entitled to recover the entire amount with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation. The said part of the order of the Tribunal is maintained. The insurance company has already paid its share of Rs. 5.000.0 compensation to the claimants. It is hereby ordered that the owner and the driver, namely, Gurdeep Singh Narula and Ajaib Singh should jointly and severally pay a sum ofRs. 50.000.00. plus simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application for claim till the date of its realisation.