Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Vijender Kumar & Ors. on 19 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
Bench: G.P.Mittal
$~ R-87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th November, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 503/2005
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for Ms.
Garima Prashad, Advocate
versus
VIJENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation(U.P.S.R.T.C.) impugns a judgment dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `56,721/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 03.08.1998.
2. The sole ground urged in the Appeal is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of UPSRTC bus No.UP-14-8217 and the negligence was on the part of the driver of truck No.DL-1L-4587 in which the First MAC. APP.503/2005 Page 1 of 4 Respondent was working as a cleaner and was travelling at the time of the accident. Thus, the Appellant had no liability to pay the compensation. The liability, if any, was that of the owner and the driver of the earlier said truck.
3. I have before me the Trial Court record. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of negligence as under:
"8. To prove this issue, petitioner has examined himself. He has fully supported his claim by deposing that on 03.08.98, he was employed as cleaner on truck No.DL-1L-4587. The truck belonged to Sh. Anil Kumar Batra. He was going to Dadri in that truck as cleaner. Lakhan Singh was driving the truck at a normal speed i.e. 30/35 km/hr. When the truck reached near Gupta Chemicals, Nai Basti, G.T. Road, at around 12.30 p.m. one U.P. Roadways bus came from opposite direction, at a fast speed and hit their truck. The no. of the bus was UP-14-8217. He has deposed that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In the accident he suffered injury including fracture on his right thigh bone. Shri Lakhan Singh died on the spot. Police also arrived at the spot and took him to Health Centre at Dadri, from where he was referred to MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad. Police subsequently recorded the statement.
9. On the other hand respondents have examined the driver of the offending bus as RW-1. He deposed that on the relevant date and time, he was driving the bus from Bulandshahar to Delhi at a normal speed of 25/30 Km/hr. He was driving the bus carefully. When he reached at G.T. Road, Dadri, a Tata 407 came from opposite side, at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of Tata 407 lost control over the offending truck. Observing that he tried to save the impact and took his bus towards the extreme left kachcha portion of the road. He has also applied brakes but the driver of Tata 407 hit his bus. He deposed MAC. APP.503/2005 Page 2 of 4 that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the Tata 407. After going through the testimony of petitioner and the driver of the offending vehicle, I am of the considered view that the testimony of the driver of the offending bus is not trustworthy. In cross-examination, RW-1, has deposed that, he was never arrested by the police. No FIR was registered against him, but in WS he has admitted that FIR has been registered against him and the same was false based on concocted and twisted facts. RW-1 has also deposed that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the Tata 407 but no explanation has been furnished by him in his testimony as to why he did not lodge any complaint for rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2."
4. It was a case of oath against oath. The First Respondent as PW1 testified that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the U.P.S.R.T.C. bus No.UP-14-8217, whereas the driver of the bus as RW1 deposed that the accident was caused on account of the rash driving of the driver of Tata 407.
5. In a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act), negligence is to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The Claims Tribunal reasoned that apart from the fact that the First Respondent raised an accusing finger against the Appellant's driver, the police had also registered a criminal case against the U.P.S.R.T.C. bus driver. The bus driver did not lodge any protest with the police authorities regarding registration of the criminal case in respect of the accident against him. Thus, the balance of negligence tilts against the Appellant's driver.
MAC. APP.503/2005 Page 3 of 46. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that while dealing with a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal should take a holistic view in the matter of determining negligence. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
7. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Appellant (UPSRTC's) bus No. UP-14-8217.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit, therefore, has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.
9. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2012 pst MAC. APP.503/2005 Page 4 of 4