The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in causing the accident and the entitlement to statutory compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugns the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 10.04.2007 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1/driver has been allowed and he has been granted compensation of Rs.1,74,593/- along with interest at 12% per annum. I may note that penalty under Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act has not been imposed upon the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 filed the subject claim petition before the Employees Compensation Commissioner pleading that he was employed with the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a driver with badge no.15486. It is pleaded that on 01.04.1997 when the respondent no.1 was on duty in bus no. DL-IP-9852 on Delhi-Agra Route, and when the bus had reached after 14 kms from Aligarh, the kamani (bus rod spring) of the bus broke and the bus, therefore, hit a tree resulting in an unfortunate accident. Many passengers also got injured in the accident, who along with respondent no.1 were taken to the hospital at Aligarh. After remaining at Aligarh for one day, respondent no.1 was brought to Delhi. He remained admitted for 60 days in Safdarjung Hospital. As a result of the accident respondent no.1’s right leg and hip portion, which were badly smashed due to the accident, could not be cured. Respondent no.1 was 40 years at the time of the accident and was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. Respondent no.1 prayed for compensation of Rs.2,54,304/- to be granted to him along with penalty and interest.

3. The appellant filed a written statement pleading that respondent no.1 was a bad driver having poor past record and the accident had occurred on account of the bus being driven at a high speed, negligently and rashly. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1 hence lost control over the steering which resulted in the bus colliding with the tree and hence the accident. It was further pleaded that the respondent no.1/driver was reimbursed his medical bills as per rules. The appellant hence prayed for the compensation petition to be dismissed.

4. The issue with respect to whether or not respondent no.1 was guilty of negligence resulting in the accident of the bus has been dealt with by the Employees Compensation Commissioner in paras 6 (a) to 6 (e) of the impugned judgment, which paras read as under:-

“6. I have perused the material available on record very carefully and my findings on the issues framed as above are as under:-

ISSUE NO.(I)

(a) The claimant/workman has stated in the claim petition that on 01.04.1997 when he was on duty in Bus No.DL-IP-9852 from Delhi to Agra, due to some technical fault, the Kamani of the bus was broken and the said bus got struck off with a tree, 14 Kms away from Aligarh, resulting in serious injuries to him along many other passengers. The claimant/workman along with injured passengers stated to have been admitted in hospital at Aligarh for one day and thereafter the claimant is stated to have been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital at New Delhi where he remained in Hospital for sixty days. The claimant has further stated that his right leg and hip portion could not be cured and his right leg which was badly smashed was operated at Sharma Nursing Home at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi but he could not be cured. The claimant has also stated that he has suffered the injuries resulting in damage of his right leg and hip portion in the course and out of his employment with the Respondent and therefore, prayed that the Respondent be directed to pay him compensation amounting to Rs 2,21,004/- along with Rs 20,000/- on account of expenditure on treatment and Rs 10,000/- on account of special diet.

(b) The contention of the Respondent Management is that the claimant/workman was driving the said bus at a very high speed on 01.04.1997 negligently, rashly and without obeying the prescribed limit of speed and hence the petitioner/driv