U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Islamuddin
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18196 of 2007]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC APP No. 284 of 2006]
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18196 of 2007]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC APP No. 284 of 2006]
Petitioner: U.P. State Road Transport Corp.
Respondent: Islamuddin
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18196 of 2007]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC APP No. 284 of 2006]
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18196 of 2007]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC APP No. 284 of 2006]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 23, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Mr. Syed Mohd Fazal and Mr. Ashwani Garg, Advocates for the Appellant.
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Mr. Syed Mohd Fazal and Mr. Ashwani Garg, Advocates for the Appellant.
Head Note:
Accident Claim
Vehicular accident resulting in injuries – MACT fixing the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,00,598/- but deducting 40% for the alleged contributory negligence of the claimant – High Court finding the ground for deduction not sufficient. Held High Court has discarded the view indicated by MACT on the ground that the evidence of the driver about the contributory negligence cannot be given any preference over the evidence of the claimant. That was not the only ground on which MACT had directed deduction for contributory negligence. There was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The liability of the corporation shall be Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of accident.
Vehicular accident resulting in injuries – MACT fixing the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,00,598/- but deducting 40% for the alleged contributory negligence of the claimant – High Court finding the ground for deduction not sufficient. Held High Court has discarded the view indicated by MACT on the ground that the evidence of the driver about the contributory negligence cannot be given any preference over the evidence of the claimant. That was not the only ground on which MACT had directed deduction for contributory negligence. There was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The liability of the corporation shall be Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of accident.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Heard.
Leave granted.
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent who had filed a claim petition claiming compensation on the ground that he had sustained injuries on account of vehicular accident which took place on 03.12.2002 near G.T.Road, Flyover, Shahdara, Delhi. Learned MACT, Karkardooma Court, Delhi fixed the amount payable as compensation to be Rs. 3,00,598/-. But deducting 40% for the alleged contributory negligence of the claimant, ultimately the amount payable by the present appellant to the claimant was fixed at Rs. 1,80,358/- (approximately). In appeal filed by the claimant, the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the reasons indicated by the MACT for making deduction on account of alleged contributory negligence were not sufficient for the purpose of making a deduction.
2. In the present appeal, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that MACT categorically indicated reasons as to why it held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent leading to the accident in question.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.
We find that the High court has discarded the view indicated by MACT on the ground that the evidence of the driver who was examined shows about the contributory negligence cannot be given any preference over the evidence of the claimant. That was not the only ground on which MACT had directed deduction for contributory negligence. It was observed that though the place of accident was indicated, the site plan did not plan other relevant details.
4. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Considering the nature of the accident we held that the liability of the Corporation shall be Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of accident. It is stated that nearly Rs. 2,22,000/- had already been deposited. The balance amount payable on the basis of present order shall be deposited with MACT within six weeks. The respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on such terms as the MACT shall stipulate.
5. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
**********
Heard.
Leave granted.
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent who had filed a claim petition claiming compensation on the ground that he had sustained injuries on account of vehicular accident which took place on 03.12.2002 near G.T.Road, Flyover, Shahdara, Delhi. Learned MACT, Karkardooma Court, Delhi fixed the amount payable as compensation to be Rs. 3,00,598/-. But deducting 40% for the alleged contributory negligence of the claimant, ultimately the amount payable by the present appellant to the claimant was fixed at Rs. 1,80,358/- (approximately). In appeal filed by the claimant, the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the reasons indicated by the MACT for making deduction on account of alleged contributory negligence were not sufficient for the purpose of making a deduction.
2. In the present appeal, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that MACT categorically indicated reasons as to why it held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent leading to the accident in question.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.
We find that the High court has discarded the view indicated by MACT on the ground that the evidence of the driver who was examined shows about the contributory negligence cannot be given any preference over the evidence of the claimant. That was not the only ground on which MACT had directed deduction for contributory negligence. It was observed that though the place of accident was indicated, the site plan did not plan other relevant details.
4. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Considering the nature of the accident we held that the liability of the Corporation shall be Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of accident. It is stated that nearly Rs. 2,22,000/- had already been deposited. The balance amount payable on the basis of present order shall be deposited with MACT within six weeks. The respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on such terms as the MACT shall stipulate.
5. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
**********
