The court held that the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident and the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on :1^st December, 2023

Pronounced on:18^th December, 2023

+

MAC.APP. 355/2013

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.

versus

RAJBIR SINGH

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Tushar Alok,

Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Raghav,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1.

This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the

Act”) assailing an award dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer,

MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 191/11/09 titled “Rajbir

Singh v. Mahender Singh & Ors.”. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of

Rs. 1,53,988/- to the respondent/claimant against which the owner of the

offending vehicle has come up in appeal.

2.

The incident occurred at 12:00 PM on 03.10.2008 when the

respondent/claimant was going to Village Chand Hut from Palwal, Haryana

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:19.12.2023

18:47:48

Signature Not Verified

driving a car bearing registration no. DL-3CY8449 with three other occupants.

At this time, the offending bus bearing registration no. UP-81N-9418 (“the

offending vehicle”) struck a portion of the car being driven by the respondent,

resulting in grievous injuries to all the occupants and resulted in the demise of

one Rajpal. It was submitted that the driver fled the scene of the accident after

the incident. The respondent/claimant sustained a fracture in the right hand,

fracture of the second, third, and fourth ribs of the right side, fracture of the

fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs of the left side along with several other grievous

injuries.

3.

The MACT framed the following issues:

4.

With respect to the first issue, the MACT was of the prima facie view

that in view of the testimonies and documents, injuries were sustained as a

result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. With respect to

the second and third issue, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 1,53,988/-

for elements such as medical treatment, pain and suffering, conveyance and

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:19.12.2023

18:47:48

Signature Not Verified

diet, and loss of income. Tabulation of the compensation awarded is provided

as under:

S.No.

Component of Compensation

Amount awarded

1.

Medicines and Medical treatment

Rs. 49,346/-

2.

Pain and suffering loss of Amenities of life

Rs. 50,000/-

3.

Conveyance and Special Diet

Rs. 30,000/-

4.

Loss of Income

Rs. 24,642/-

Total Compensation

Rs. 1,53,988/-

5.

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Owner, canvassing the

following grounds:

a.The respondent acted negligently, and the MACT did not consider

contributory negligence involved in a head-on collision in this

matter.

b.The MACT has granted excess compensation to the Respondent.

Negligence

6.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the MACT erred in holding the

bus driver guilty of causing the accident. He states that the respondent/claimant

was on the wrong side of the road and driving the car under the influence of

liquor. Further, since this collision was head-on, both drivers must be attributed

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:19.12.2023

18:47:48

Signature Not Verified

contributory negligence. Counsel further contends that no reasoning on the

issue of negligence had been provided by the MACT. He relies upon Bijoy

Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta (2006) 3 SCC 242 wherein it was held:

“12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:19.12.2023

18:47:48

Signature Not Verified

MACT cannot be said to be inadequate and inappropriate.”

7.

Counsel for the respondent contends that the bus driver, had admitted to

the fact of the accident, but alleged that the respondent was negligent. He states

that the allegation of the respondent being under the infl