Back
High Court Of Delhi
ISHWAR DEVI MALIK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
First Appeal Order 166D of 1966
Decided On : 03/19/1968
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-A, 110-B, 110-D - FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 - S. 1-A, 2 - MOTOR VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956 - S. 80 - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - S. 478 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - S. 80 - Where the deceased boarded the bus when it was stationary, but when he was still on the foot-board with a part of his body outside the bus, the conductor gave the bell and the bus moved passing by the side of the stationary bus very closely, with the result that the deceased either struck against the right rear corner of the stationary bus or got pressed between the two buses and sustained the injuries, as a result of which he died later in the hospital, the accident was caused by the rash driving and negligence of the driver and the conductor of the offending bus.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Sham Lal Malik, was waiting for a bus at the Farash Khana Bus Stop. Bus No. DLP 730 of route No. 2 arrived at the said Bus stop at about 4 p.m. Immediately after, Bus No. DLP 230 arrived at the said Bus Stop. Just when the deceased placed his foot on the foot-board of the said bus, the Conductor rashly and in a very great haste, without allowing the deceased to enter into the bus, rang the bell, and the driver started the bus. The deceased was crushed between the two buses, and as a result of the same he sustained very serious injuries on the chest. He was then taken to the Irwin Hospital where, as a result of the said injuries, he died at about 6 p.m. on the same day.
Finding of the Court:
The accident was caused by the rash driving and negligence of the driver and the conductor of the offending bus No. DLP 230 of route No. 2.
Issues: 1. Whether the vehicles of the Delhi Transport Undertaking are exempt from the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicle? Act? 2. Whether this application is not maintainable for want of notice under Sec. 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act? 3. Whether the death of Shri Sham Lal Malik was due to an accident caused by the rash driving and negligence of the driver and conductor respectively of Bus No. DLP 230 on 26/12/1961 at about 4 P. M. at Farash Khana? 4. To what amout of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? 5. Whether the petitioners are the heirs of the deceased? 6. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence? 7. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The act of the conductor in signalling the bus to proceed before the passenger standing on the foot-board moved into the bus, and the act of the driver in not allowing sufficient clearance while passing by the side of the stationary bus, are acts of rashness and negligence on the part of the conductor and the driver.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal, dated 17/3/1966, is set aside, and it is ordered that Jagjit Kumar Malik, Naresh Kumar Malik, Asha Malik be paid Rs. 25,500.00 each., and Mela Ram Malik and Smt. Lakshmit Devi, parents of Sham Lal, be paid Rs. 6.375.00 each, by respondents 2 to 5. The appellants (applicants) are also entitled to their costs throughout payable by respondents 2 to 5.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 17/3/1966, dismissing an application filed before the Claims Tribunal under Section 110-A of the said Act for the. payment of compensation.
( 2 ) THE first appellant herein is the widow of one Sham Lal Malik, the sixth respondent and the second appellant are the sons, the third appellant is the daughter, and the fourth and the fifth appellants are the father and the mother of the said Sham Lal Malik. They filed the aforesaid application as heirs of the said Sham Lal Malik claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000. 00 as compensation arising out of an accident which took place on 26/12/1961 at Farash Khana Bus Stop, G. B. Road, at about 4 p. m. , resulting in the death of the aforesaid Sham Lal Malik. The applicants stated in their application that the deceased Sham Lal Malik was about 40 years old and was doing business earning a monthly income of about Rs. 1,700. 00 per month; that on 26/12/1961 the deceased was waiting for the bus of route No. 2 at the Farash Khana Bus Stop; that Bus No. DLP 730 of route No. 13 arrived at the said But stop at about 4 p. m. ; that immediately after, I Bus No. DLP 230 arrived at the said Bus Stop ; and that just when the deceased placed his foot on the foot-board of the said bus, the Conductor rashly and in a very great haste, without allowing the deceased to enter into the bus, rang the bell, and the driver started the bus. The applicants further stated that the driver crossed the bus No. DLP 730 which was standing so closely that the deceased was crushed between the two buses, and as a result of the same he sustained very serious injuries on the chest; that he was then taken to the Irwin Hospital where, as a result of the said injuries, he died at about 6 p. m. on the same day; that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent acts of the Conductor and the Driver of the bus No. DLP 230 of route No. 2; that the said Conductor and Driver (respondents Nos. 4 and 5) were the employees of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, namely (1) the Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, (2) the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and (3) the Delhi Transport Undertaking through the Officer-Incharge, Scindia House, New Delhi; that the accident took place during the course of their employment; and that, therefore the respondents 1 to 3 were also liable to pay the compensation claimed by the applicants.
( 3 ) IT was also stated in the application that the deceased who was aged about 40 years was in a very good state of health; that he was a partner in a flourishing business, namely, M/s. Arjan Dass Gupta and Brothers, Coal Merchants, which have seven branches in all important places in India; that the deceased was assessed to income-tax on the yearly income of Rs. 21,296. 00 in the assessment year 1960-61; that his income was bound to improve every year; that the age of the widow of the deceased was 38 years; that the eldest son of the deceased was aged about 19 years and was studying in B. Sc. (Final) in Kirori Mal College Delhi; that the other son of the deceased was aged about 18 years and was studying in the 2nd year in Shri Ram College of Commerce; that the daughter of the deceased aged about 14 years, was studying in the New Bharat Higher Secondary School; that the father and the mother of the deceased were 67 and 65 years old respectively; and that the applicants claim Rs. 4,50,000. 00 as compensation from the respondents taking into consideration the loss of pecuniary benefits which they would have received if the deceased had not died, his pecuniary savings from his income, his contributions to the family for their maintenance and education, etc. , and also the assistance he would have continued to give to his family members and the loss of estate.
( 4 ) THE application was contested b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
