U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Bhuvnesh Dutta

S.S. Kulshrestha, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials on record.

This appeal has been brought against the award dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addi District Judge, Court No. 6 Gautam Budh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 47/01 whereby awarding compensation in the tune of Rs. 50,000 together with interest @ 10%. It is said that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record. Claimant himself was rashly and negligently driving the cycle. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) cannot be held liable for the rash and negligent act of the claimant himself. The learned Tribunal has given undue importance on the evidence including the medical bills furnished by the claimant when those bills were also not true. Even the oral evidence adduced by the parties was not appreciated in correct perspective. It is also said that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000 towards medical bills and Rs. 15,000 towards pains and sufferings. It has further been mentioned that the pains and sufferings ought to have been pleaded by the claimant. In that regard reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi and Another Vs. Lalta Prasad Srivastava and Another,

Since it is a case of accident and petty amount is involved and so at this stage final haring of the case is made without giving any notice to the respondent.

In order to make the disposal of this appeal a brief resume of the facts may be made. It was on 24.10.2000 the claimant Sri Bhuvnesh Dutta was going on cycle and when he reached near to D.P.S. School crossing road within police circle Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad at about 7.00 a.m., Corporation bus No. UP 15E 0113 coming from Meerut, which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently ignoring all traffic rules, collided with the cycle of the claimant. He sustained head and bodily injuries. He was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad where he remained admitted for a petty long time. He sustained fracture in his left leg, which was plastered. He spent huge amount in his treatment. In that background amount of Rs. 11 lakh towards compensation had been claimed. That claim petition was resisted by the Corporation with the contention that the Corporation bus was being driven carefully and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was the cycle rider who himself dashed with the vehicle and so in that background the claimant is not entitled for compensation. The learned Tribunal proceeded to frame the issues whether the bus was being driven rashly and negligently or it was the negligence on the part of the cycle rider/claimant himself. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record came to irresistible conclusion that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. The issues were decided against the Corporation. As regards to the compensation the bills to the tune of Rs. 34,177 were filed by the claimant. Placing reliance on those bills coupled with the submissions made by the claimant the learned Tribunal fixed liability of compensation on the Corporation Rs. 35,000 towards treatment and Rs. 15,000 towards pains and sufferings. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the driver of the bus was not rash and negligent and to the contrary for the negligence on the part of the cycle rider/claimant no liability can be fastened against the Corporation.

The question arises as to how far determination of compensation so made by the learned Tribunal is justified. The topic of compensation for causing death by negligent driving came up for serious discussion in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and Others, The Court referred to the House of Lords decision in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited 1942 AC 601 and quoted the following passage from the judgment:

The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered.... The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death.

The Court also referred to the judgment by the Viscount Simon in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Limited 1951 AC 601 in which the same principles were enunciated for estimating the damages the method adopted however differed. Various factors that would enter the calculation as per Viscount Simon were set out in the judgment as under:

...at first the deceased man''s expectation of life has to be estimated having regard to his age, bodily health and the possibility of premature determination of his life by later accidents; secondly the amount required for the future provision of his wife shall be estimated having regard to the amounts he used to spend on her during his life-time, and other circumstances; thirdly the estimated annual sum is multiplied by the number of years of the man''s estimated span of life, and the said amount must be discounted so as to arrive at the equivalent in the form of lump sum payable on his death; fourthly further deductions must be made for the benefit accruing to the widow from the acceleration of her interest in his estate; and fifthly, further amounts have to be deducted for the possibility of the wife dying earlier if the husband had lived the full span of life; and it should also be taken into account that there is the possibility of the widow, remarrying much to the improvement of her financial position. It would be seen from the said mode of estimation that many imponderables enter into the calculation.

The same principles were recalled in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Subhagwanti and Others, . In this case the claim for compensation arose on account of loss of life caused by the collapse of the Clock Tower abutting a highway. The Court referred to both the aforementioned judgments and extracted the following passage from the judgment in the case of Davies (supra).

The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend upon the regulatory of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or years purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt.

The learned tribunal had taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties. From the statements of the witnesses examined by the claimant, it is decipherable that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and that too near to the DPS. School. The learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record. There appears no reason to defer with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. From the evidence adduced from the side of the claimant it is clear that in that accident he sustained head and bodily injuries. He remained unconscious and shifted to the hospital. His left fractured leg remained plastered for six months. The bills for the amount of Rs. 34,177 were also furnished by him. On that basis, however, the amount of Rs. 35,000 was adjudged by the learned Tribunal for reimbursement. There appears to be no reason to defer with those findings. However, it is said by the learned Counsel for the appellant that those bills have not been proved by the claimant. In that regard it may be mentioned that the claimant has categorically stated about those bills for the amount of Rs. 34,177. The claimant remained bedridden for six months. His left leg was fractured. He also sustained head injury. For that he remained hospitalised for 20-25 days. For such an agony the amount of Rs. 15,000 so awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. As regards the observations made in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Limited v. Lalta Prasad Srivastava (supra) is concerned nowhere it is mentioned here in this case by the learned Counsel for the appellant that such pains suffering and agony caused to the claimant were not pleaded by him in the claim petition. I do not find any justified and justifiable ground to interfere in the findings and the award so given by the learned Tribunal.

It is next contended that the interest amount was unreasonably awarded by the learned Tribunal. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case interest @ 10% awarded by the tribunal is reduced to 6%. The impugned order is modified to that extent.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.