DELHI HIGH COURT
Navin Chawla, J.
UP State Road Transport
Corporation and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Jitender Kumar Rana and Anr. – Respondents
MAC.App. 1092 of 2017
+ MAC.App. 1131 of 2017
Decided on 8.11.2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Injuries suffered in road accident – Total compensation of Rs.47,63,379/- awarded by MACT – Tribunal has rightly concluded that claimant had suffered injuries due to offending Bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner and due to its emergency gate not being properly fixed/bolted – Even if case of UPSRTC/driver of offending Bus that another Bus coming from opposite side had brushed side of offending Bus is to be believed, it would be a case of composite negligence and it would be open to claimant to claim compensation from owner of offending Bus (UPSRTC) – Plea of UPSRTC that contributory negligence should be attributed to claimant as he had kept his hand outside window of offending Bus also cannot be accepted – Claimant has suffered permanent disability of 85% in relation to his right upper limb due to amputation – Prosthetic limb would require regular maintenance – UPSRTC, in a vague manner, challenges award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, and Rs.1,50,000/- towards disfigurement, awarded in favour of claimant as being highly excessive – Compensation awarded by Tribunal affirmed. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 29,
33, 67, 69, 72 and 73)
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPSRTC’) and the Claimant-Shri Jitender Kumar Rana, respectively challenging the Award dated 05.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 205/2013 (New MAC No. 282/2016) titled Sh. Jitender Kumar Rana v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Dwivedi & Anr..
2. As the appeals challenge the same Award, they are being considered and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
Background Facts:
3. Before the learned Tribunal, it was the case of the Claimant, that is, the appellant in MAC APP. 1131/2017, that on 27.06.2013 at 06.30 a.m., he along with his friends was coming from Allahabad to Delhi in a bus bearing registration no. UP-70DT-0132 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Offending Bus’) driven by Shri Ravinder Kumar Dwivedi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Driver’) and owned by the UPSRTC- appellant in the MAC APP. 1092/2017. It was stated that the driver of the Offending Bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, when the said Offending Bus reached near Mourya Petrol Pump, PS Bichhua, Mainpuri, Eta, Uttar Pradesh, it collided with another Roadways Bus, with the other bus scratching past the Offending Bus. The Claimant was sitting on the window seat behind the driver near the emergency gate. The emergency gate was not properly bolted/fixed. In the accident, the Claimant sustained grievous injury. He was taken to the Maharaja Tej Singh District Hospital and thereafter referred to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. He was later shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. An FIR No. 76/13, at Police Station Bichhua, Uttar Pradesh was also registered on the complaint filed by the Conductor of the Offending Bus. As a result of the abovementioned accident, the right hand of the claimant was amputated till the shoulder. The Claimant pleaded that he was working as a typist for various advocates at the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He filed his claim seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road accident.
4. Based on the evidence led before it, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant had been able to prove that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The learned Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the Claimant:—
“44. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under:
| 1 | Compensation towards pain and sufferings | Rs.1,50,000/- |
| 2 | Compensation towards medical bills | Rs.25,62,462/- |
| 3 | Loss of earning capacity due to disability |
|
| 4 | Loss of earning for a period of 12 months | Rs.2,31,897/- |
| 5 | Attendant charges | Rs.21,000/- |
| 6 | Special diet and conveyance | Rs.50,000/- |
| 7 | Compensation on account of expenses incurred on engaging driver for 2 years | Rs.1,20,000/- |
| 8 | Compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life | Rs.1,50,000/- |
| 9 | Compensation towards disfigurement | Rs.1,50,000/- |
| 10 | Compensation on account of artificial limb | Rs.10,00,000/- |
| 11 | Compensation on account of maintenance of artificial limb | Rs.1,50,000/- |
|
| Total | Rs.47,63,379/- |
Challenge to the finding of Negligence of the Driver of the Offending Bus:
5. The UPSRTC, that is, the appellant in MAC. APP. 1092/2017, challenges the Impugned Award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the injured/claimant has suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the Offending Bus. It contends that the Claimant has suffered injuries due to his own fault and negligence, inasmuch as he had put his right hand outside the window wh
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal and Ors.
Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr.
Kalpanaraj vs. T.N. State Transport Corpn.
Injuries suffered in road accident – In a case of composite negligence it would be open to claimant to claim compensation from owner of offending vehicle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly the definitions of 'transport vehicle' and 'private service vehicle', and the principles....
The court determined that negligence in a motor accident lay solely with the bus driver, and the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for permanent disability and future prospects, alongsid....
Functional disability assessment must consider the claimant's specific occupation and the impact of the impairment upon it. Where pre-accident income is proven, claimants aged 40-50 are entitled to 2....
Compensation for permanent disability must reflect the actual impact on earning capacity and consider the claimant's socio-economic background.
The court affirmed the principle of full compensation for personal injuries, emphasizing the need to consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in motor accident claims.
The court established that in cases of composite negligence, a victim should not bear any contributory negligence and is entitled to full compensation from the negligent parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.