$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 423/2023 & CM APPLs. 46150/2023, 62215/2024, 62216/2024

1. HRTC, NALAGARH

2. SH. LEKH RAM (Driver)

.....Appellants Through: Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Advocate through VC.

Versus

1. SAVITA (Widow)

2. JYOTI (Daughter) 3. SAKSHI (Daughter)

4. SHUBAM (Son) 5. SURAJ (Son)

6. SMT. RAPPATI (Mother)

7. SH. KRISHNA DUTT (Father)

.....Respondents/Claimants Through: Mr. Manish Maini & Ms. Divya Saini, Advocates for R-1 to 7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

MAC.APP. 423/2023 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL

1. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”) has been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the Award dated 01.03.2023 vide which a compensation in the sum of Rs.39,35,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was granted to the Respondents/Claimants on account of demise of Shri Harish Pandey in a road accident, on 03.04.2018.

2. Briefly stated, on 03.04.2018 at around 3:58 p.m., Shri Harish Pandey with Shri Vijay Ram (the pillion rider) while going on a Scooty, were hit by Bus bearing No. HP12-H-7433 (the Offending Vehicle) near khampur Red Light, opposite the Bus Stand, GTK Road going towards Bypass, Delhi, resulting in demise of Shri Harish Pandey and injuries to Shri Vijay Ram.

3. The FIR No.150/18 was registered under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Alipur. Charge Sheet was filed before the Ld. MM. DAR was filed on 03.04.2018, before the Tribunal.

4. The Award dated 01.03.2023 was passed vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.39,35,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was granted to the Respondents/Claimants on account of demise of Shri Harish Pandey.

5. The Insurance Company/Appellant has challenged the Award on the ground that the contributory negligence of the deceased Shri Harish Pandey has been wrongly assessed as 20% instead of 50%, as he was driving the Scooty in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and was unable to control the Scooty and hit into the back side of the bus while it was standing at the red light.

6. It is, therefore, submitted that the contributory negligence of the deceased Shri Harish Pandey should have been assessed as 50% and the compensation amount be revised.

MAC.APP. 423/2023 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants has argued that there was no contributory negligence on behalf of deceased Shri Harish Pandey.

CM APPL. 62215/2024:

8. The Claimants have filed the Cross Objections for challenging the attribution of 20% contributory negligence of deceased, Shri Harish Pandey. It is submitted that the accident was caused as the Bus Driver had applied the brakes suddenly. The negligence of the bus driver, Sh. Lekh Ram is further established from the fact that he has been Charge-Sheeted.

9. Submissions heard and Record Perused.

10. The Appellants herein have challenged the Award on the ground of contributory negligence. It has been contended that the contributory negligence of the deceased, Shri Harish Pandey has been assessed at 20%, when infact it should have been atleast 50%. The Claimants, on the other hand, have asserted that sole negligence was that of the Bus driver and even 20% contributory negligence as attributed to the deceased, is liable to be revised.

11. From the facts as narrated above, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred near the red light where the Bus was rammed into by the Scooty from behind resulting in demise of the Scooty driver.

12. The first material witness examined in this regard by the Claimants was PW2-Sh. Vijay Ram, the eye witness who was the pillion rider on the Scooty. He deposed that when they reached near Khampur Red Light, opposite Bus Stand GTK Road, the Himachal Roadways bus, which was ahead of them applied sudden sharp breaks in a rash and negligent ma