MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. RAM PRAKASH — 1974 DIGILAW 2 (DEL)

Rajinder Sachar J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment will dispose of F. A. O. 18/67 F. A. O. 19/67, F. A. O. 34/67 and CM (Main) 22/67 (Cross-objections in F. A. O. 19/67) as they arise out of the same award of the Tribunal. ( 2 ) F. A. O. 18 and 19 of 1967 are appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal by which he granted Rs. 4900. 00 to Ram Prakash (respondent in F. A. O. 18/67, Rs. 5156. 75 to Prem Sagar (respondent in F. A. O. 19/67 ). ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS put in application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the injuries have been received by them by the rash and negligent driving of D. T. U. bus No. D. L. P. 630 on 22-9. 1963 at about2. 45 p. m. near Subash Marg, near Lajpat Rai Market. It was alleged that Ram Parkash, respondent, was going from Darya Ganj side when he was hit by the bus, with the result that he fell down and sustained Multiple injuries and remained as patient in the hospital till 14. 10. 1963. In the application filed by Prem Sagar, respondent, it was alleged that on that day be was standing on foot path when the bus came on the extreme right side and after hitting the iron railing, climbed on the foot path and violently struck against a tree resulting into injuries to him. He remained confined to the hospital and was discharged only on 2. 11. 1963. It was pleaded in both the applications that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. Ram Parkash claimed an amount of Rs. 15000. 00 on account of injuries suffered by him while Prem Sagar claimed lumpsum of Rs. 40,000. 00 as compensation. ( 4 ) THE appellant Corporation denied the allegation and mainlined that the bus was going on its proper side when suddenly a few children came in front of the bus and in order to save them the driver swerved the bus on its right and in that attempt the accident took place. It was also alleged that the respondents had contributed to the negligence and therefore the appellant was not liable. It was also alleged that the respondents had contributed to the negligence and therefore the appellant was not liable. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal found that no doubt some children emerged on the road ahead of the bus, but it did not absolve the driver because he was going on a fast speed and was not able to control the bus; with the result that the accident took place with the scooter of Ram Parkash as well as further injuries caused to respondent, Prem Sagar. The Tribunal has, therefore, found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal also found that there was no question of contributory negligence by any of those two respondents. He accordingly granted Rs. 4900. 00 as compensation to Ram Parkash including Rs. 3000. 00 on account of general damages and the rest on account of expenses in respect of medicines, special diet, conveyance etc. spent by him. Similarly he granted to Prem Sagar Rs. 5156. 75 including Rs. 3500. 00 on account of general damages and rest on account of expenses in respect of medicines, hospital diet etc. ( 6 ) THE municipal Corporation aggrieved against this order has filed two appeals namely F. A. O. 18 and 19 of 1967. Ram Parkash, respondent, feeling aggrieved against the quantum of compensation has filed F. A. O. 34/67 whereas Prem Sagar feeling aggrieved against the quantum of compensation has filed CM (M) 22/67 in F. A. O. 19/67. ( 7 ) THE first question argued by the counsel for the corporation is that in view of the finding of the Tribunal that 2/3 children suddenly emerged from the side and came ahead of the bus, it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was driving rashly and negligently if he swerved to the right. Now reference to the evidence of R. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in Ram Parkash s case shows that the bus was going at a very high speed. Similarly in Prem Sagar s case AW 8 and 10 have also stated that the bus was coming at a fast speed, Public Witness 8 Piara Singh in Ram Parkash s case, has stated that the road is 50 feet wide at the place where the accident took place. Ram Parkash has stated that he was driving the scooter at 14/15 miles per hour. Ram Parkash has stated that he was driving the scooter at 14/15 miles per hour. He is also supported by other witnesses on this count. According to him the bus suddenly took a turn and hit him and a portion of the bus struck against the scooter. Prem Sagar s evidence is that after crossing the parade ground he was standing outside Lajpat Rai market near the crossing to go to other side when the bus suddenly came from the left side, smashed the railing and struck him. It will thus be seen that though it may be that originally the bus took a sudden swerve to the right because of the emergence of 2/3 children, the same must obviously have been driven at quite a fast speed because the driver was not able either to stop it immediately. Not only that but when the bus swerved to the right and hit the scooter of Ram Parkash, the driver was not able to control it but it dashed through the railing and the bus was only stopped when it struck against a tree on the foot path. This behaviour of the bus shows that all the time the bus was out of control of the driver and this could only be if he was driving it rashly and negligently. Had the bus been driven at a normal speed the sudden presence of the children should still have enabled the driver to apply the brakes there and then. Even if the emergence of the children was sudden and a little swerve to the right was necessary, the lack of control by the driver of the bus is totally inconsistent with the suggestion that any control was being exercised by the driver. The finding of the Tribunal on the assessment of evidence, therefore is not open to objection as in my view it is amply demonstrated by the evidence as well as the circumstances of the case. It is in fact a case where the thing speaks for itself because the very uncontrolled dashing of the bus from the left to the extreme right of the road leave no manner of doubt that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and in a hazardous manner. I would therefore affirm the finding of the Tribunal on this point. I would therefore affirm the finding of the Tribunal on this point. ( 8 ) THE next point argued by the counsel for the corporation was that Ram Parkash must be held to have contributed to the accident as he did not avoid striking the bus when it swerved on the right. This argument appears to me to be specious. Ram Parkash was going on the scooter on the correct side and if, as the driver of the bus himself states, that he swerved the bus suddenly on the right because of the emergency, it is apparent that there would be no time for Ram Parkash to avoid hitting the bus and it is pointless to suggest that he has contributed to the accident. The negligence of the driver is apparent from thefact that after the bus had hit the scooter the bus did not stop and went on the extreme right and ultimately broke the railing and hit the tree on the foot path. The suggestion that Ram Prakash must have contributed to the accident, therefore, must be repelled. As regards the suggestion of contributory negligence by Prem Sagar the argument is even still more mis-conceived. Prem Sagar was standing on the foot path and the bus having swerved on the right dashed through the railing and hit him. I do not appreciate how and in what manner Prem Sagar can be said to have contributed to the accident because he was hit when he was standing on the foot path. The suggestion, as I take it is that Prem Sagar should have seen the bus coming on to him and should have avoided it and as he could not avoid it he must be held to have contributed to the accident. The suggestion that even if the bus is being driven rashly and negligently, it is upto the pedestrians to have saved themselves from the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver, is so out-rageous that it has only to be stated to be rejected. ( 9 ) GRIEVANCE was made by the counsel that no damages have been given for the loss of memory which was said to be a case of permanent disability to Prem Sagar. A reference to the evidence of Dr. Rathi (AW 1) shows that on 22. 9. ( 9 ) GRIEVANCE was made by the counsel that no damages have been given for the loss of memory which was said to be a case of permanent disability to Prem Sagar. A reference to the evidence of Dr. Rathi (AW 1) shows that on 22. 9. 1963 when Prem Sagar was admitted in the hospital he was in a stage of semi-consciousness and when he was discharged from the hospital he regained full consciousness and that he could move about and excepting the loss of memory regarding the accident, he had full memory of the past life. Though he had stated that severity of the head injury leads usually to loss of memory, there was no question nor has he so stated that in case of Prem Sagar, there was any proof that there was loss of memory. Consequently there can be no question of any damages on this count. ( 10 ) MR. Dhir also made a grievance that no compensation has been paid on account of loss of promotion suffered by Prem Sagar. The argument was that Prem Sagar was working as a mechanic and has been deprived of his next promotion as a mechanic because he could not take departmental promotion. Apart from the bald statement made by Prem Sagar that he could not take departmental examination because of the accident it has not been shown how and in what manner he was prevented from taking the departmental examination. No evidence has been given that Prem Sagar sat in the departmental examination but because of inherent defect caused by accident he was not able to pass the test because there was physical disability. Mr. Dhir then suggested that possibly no departmental test had taken place when the evidence was given. If so the grievance cannot be made because the whole basis of the argument is that an opportunity did come for taking the departmental test but because of the injuries, Prem Sagar could not take the departmental test. In my view, the Tribunal rightly disallowed any compensation in this account. Prem Sagar has also stated in his evidence that he was attending the office regularly and was not getting any treatment, and this also did prove the suggestion that he had suffered permanently any disability in any way because of this accident. ( 11 ) MR. In my view, the Tribunal rightly disallowed any compensation in this account. Prem Sagar has also stated in his evidence that he was attending the office regularly and was not getting any treatment, and this also did prove the suggestion that he had suffered permanently any disability in any way because of this accident. ( 11 ) MR. Prem also made a grievance that because of the accident there had been loss of memory of Ram Prakash but nothing has been given by the Tribunal. Now the evidence of Dr. G. D. Rathi is that Ram Prakash when admitted in the hospital was unconscious for about six hours and later on remained confused upto 1. 10. 1963. As a matter of fact no suggestion was even put to Dr. Rathi that there had been any loss of memory because of the injury suffered by Ram Prakash. Mr. Prem sought to rely on the portion of the evidence of Dr. Rathi where he had stated that there may or may not be possibility of the head injury leaving a permanent loss of memory. I do not see how this helps him. Theoretically it may not be ruled out. The question however is whether in this particular case it has left no such mark. As a matter of fact the evidence of Ram Prakash does not in any manner show that he had suffered in his further career because of this accident. The only suggestion in his evidence was that he could not go to Bombay for interview but was unable to prove it either by sum-moning necessary documents from the department or otherwise. The statement merely remains a bald one without any proof. In my view the Tribunal therefore rightly held that no compensation was payable either to Ram Prakash or Prem Sagar because of any loss of memory suffered by this accident. ( 12 ) THE next grievance of Mr. Dhir and Mr. Prem was that the general damages awarded was inadequate. I have referred to various cases for this purposes. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by referring to these cases because each case depends on its own peculiar facts and the matter of grant of damages will necessarily vary with each case and will depend on its own facts. I have referred to various cases for this purposes. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by referring to these cases because each case depends on its own peculiar facts and the matter of grant of damages will necessarily vary with each case and will depend on its own facts. In Ayesha Begum v. G. Veerappan and others1; a girl aged 5 years was knocked down by a truckand hurt and it was found that the child would be unable to walk and had become crippled for life and thus compensation of Rs. 15,000. 00 was upheld. Similarly in Slate of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Jagdip Singh Pathanian2 the injured was executive officer drawing Rs. 800. 00 p. m. and he was incapacitated to do any work. It was found that if he had continued for 20 years, he would have earned at least 96,000. 00 and it was in that view that it was found that the compensation of Rs. 75,000. 00 was not excessive. It is well settled that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court is not to be lightly interfered with unless the appellate court is of the view that the trial court has acted on wrong principles of law or that the amount awarded was so wholly erroneous or that the amount awarded is so inordinately low or high that it must be based on wholly erroneous principles applicable to damages. I cannot find that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in any arbitrary manner or unreasonably or that the amount awarded is so grossly inadequate, and I am, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. The result is that I would affirm the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals F. A. Os 18 and 19 of 1967 with costs. In the view that I have taken above there is no merit in the appeal F. A. O. 34/67 and CM (M) 22/67 and the same are also dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs.