BACHAN KAUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI — 1985 DIGILAW 215 (DEL)

S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Gaya Ram who was killed in an accident on the G. T. Road near Azadpur, Delhi. He was hit by D. T. U. (now D. T. C.) bus No. DLP 270. The claimants preferred the claim of Rs. 25,000. 00. The Tribunal found that the bus was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident took place because of the fault of Gaya Ram, The claim petition was, therefore, dismissed. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants is that the deceased was crossing G. T. Road which was about 25 feet wide in 1966. As he was crossing the road, he saw a D. T. C. bus coming from a distance of about thirty feet. He gave hand signal to the bus to drive slow as he was crossing the road but the bus was at a great speed, did not stop and knocked down Gaya Ram. Gaya Ram died due to severe injuries. The respondents on the other hand give another version of the accident. They stated that the bus in question was proceeding from Indira Nagar towards Coronation Depot. When it reached near Azadpur bus stop and was going to stop, the deceased suddenly came from a gali on the right side and in an effort to cross the road he felt nervous and struck against the left portion of the bus. The deceased was very old and infirm. The accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased. ( 3 ) DHARAM Singh, Public Witness 2. and Jagdish Lal, Public Witness 3, are the eye-witnesses. Dharam Singh (Public Witness 2) had stated that the bus came on the wrong side and hit the deceased. He then stated that the bus did not immediately stop but went about three yards ahead. The Tribunal rejected this evidence on some minor contradictions. It appears that the Tribunal was more impressed by the fact that this witness had appeared in the criminal case in which the driver was acquitted. The Tribunal came to the erroneous conclusion that since the bus stopped three yards away from the place of accident, it was not running at a high speed. It appears that the Tribunal was more impressed by the fact that this witness had appeared in the criminal case in which the driver was acquitted. The Tribunal came to the erroneous conclusion that since the bus stopped three yards away from the place of accident, it was not running at a high speed. The evidence of other eye-witness Jagdish Lal (Public Witness 3) is also rejected by the Tribunal on the flimsy ground. The Tribunal held that it was not shown as to how he was made available to the claimants for giving evidence. It was overlooked by the Tribunal that he was the resident of Azadpur and staying in the same area. The third eye-witness, Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Public Witness 4 s evidence is also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the police did not record his statement and his evidence was not taken in the criminal court. I have gone through the evidence of these three witnesses and I find that they have given truthful account as to how the accident took place. I accept the evidence of eye-witnesses. ( 4 ) WHILE considering the evidence of the respondents witnesses the Tribunal has not applied its mind. It has overlooked certain glaring mistakes. It has also drawn the wrong inferences from the respondents evidence. Sri Ram, the driver, has asserted that he was going on the left side of the road, while the deceased came from a gali on the right side. After seeing the deceased crossing the road, he slightly swerved the vehicle to the right. The deceased hit the bus on the front left side. The driver has not said anything as to whether he gave the horn after seeing the deceased crossing the road. He has also not stated as to where the bus stopped. He was the proper person to make these statements. But curiously enough Rughbir Singh, DW 3, the conductor, stated that the driver repeatedly gave the horn after seeing the deceased crossing the road. He also stated that the bus immediately stopped near the place of accident. The Tribunal has also wrongly relied on evidence of Ram Parshad DW 1. He was the driver of the D. T. C. for 12 years and he has not explained as to why he was present at the time of the accident. He also stated that the bus immediately stopped near the place of accident. The Tribunal has also wrongly relied on evidence of Ram Parshad DW 1. He was the driver of the D. T. C. for 12 years and he has not explained as to why he was present at the time of the accident. ( 5 ) BUT even after taking the version of the respondents witnesses it is clear that the D. T. C. bus was negligent and the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving. Admittedly, the G. T. Road near Azadpur was about 25 feet in 1966. If the deceased was coming from the right hand gali and if the bus was towards the extreme left of the road, it is clear that the deceased had almost crossed the road. The respondents witnesses have said that the deceased hit on the front left side of the bus. The statement of the witnesses of the respondents as regards the blowing of the horn and speed are contradictory. I prefer the evidence of the witnesses of the claimants that no horn was blown and the bus could not stop at the spot but went and stopped about fifteen feet away from the place of accident. The deceased died almost immediately after the impact. This shows that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. I, therefore, hold that the accident was caused by the D. T. C. bus and the D. T. C. is liable for the death of Gaya Ram and is also liable to pay compensation. ( 6 ) THE next question is about the amount of compensation. The claimants had claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 as compensation. The witnesses for the claimants had stated that he was about 62 years old while the doctor had found him to be around 75 years old. However, in the petition as well as in the evidence by the claimants, (who are the widow, son and daughter) the age of the deceased is stated to be 67. I would prefer to fix the age of the deceased as 67. The Tribunal has accepted that he was getting the pension of Rs. 72. 00 per month but has rejected the evidence that he was getting a salary of Rs. 150. 00 per month from M/s. Gupta Cloth House, Azadpur, Delhi. I would prefer to fix the age of the deceased as 67. The Tribunal has accepted that he was getting the pension of Rs. 72. 00 per month but has rejected the evidence that he was getting a salary of Rs. 150. 00 per month from M/s. Gupta Cloth House, Azadpur, Delhi. Earlier he was working as a pump driver where he was getting Rs. 5. 50 per day. The deceased has a large family to support and it can easily be assumed that he was earning about Rs. 150. 00 per month at the time of the accident. Although the deceased had a number of children at the time of the accident, he was supporting his wife and two minor children. The income of Rs. 150. 00 is so meagre that it must be presumed that he was contributing the whole income for maintaining his family. I am, therefore, not inclined to make any deduction from the amount of Rs. 150. 00. It is not proved by the respondents or by the doctor who appeared in the case that the deceased was not enjoying normal good health. It is reasonable to expect that the deceased would have lived up to the age of 75 and would have contributed a sum of Rs. 150. 00 per month to the family. I would, therefore, apply the multiplier of eight and award the compensation of Rs. 14,400. 00. The claimants would also be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from March, 1970 till the date of this order. The payment shall be made by respondent No. 2 D. T. C. within three months from today. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed with costs.