Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP. No. 633/2007
Judgment delivered on: October 24, 2007
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Adv.
versus
Smt. Chander Kanta & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
CM 14325/2007
This is an application for condonation of delay in refiling the
appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 1 of 4
CM stands disposed of.
MAC APP. No. 633/2007
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of the Tribunal,
whereby an Award for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the petition till realization has been passed
in favour of the respondent, the appellant has preferred the present
th
appeal assailing the said order dated 18 October, 2006.
The main thrust of argument of the counsel for the appellant is
that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence led by the appellant and
has given undue weightage to the evidence adduced by the
respondent/claimant. The contention of the counsel for the appellant
is that the case in question is a case of contributory negligence where
not only the vehicle owned by the appellant, but the vehicle i.e. fiat
Car No. DNH-1485 in which the appellant was travelling, was equally
involved. Counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the liability of
the claim amount was to be apportioned by the Tribunal and the
appellant alone could not have been held responsible for the said
accident.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 2 of 4
length and have perused the records. The Tribunal has threadbare
discussed the aspect of the negligence in the impugned Award. The
Tribunal in its finding has observed that the FIR was registered by
the police only against the bus driver of the appellant and chargesheet
has also been filed against him. This fact has not only been admitted
by the driver of the appellant bus but also the conductor of the
offending bus, who gave his deposition as RW-2. The Tribunal also
observed that no FIR was registered against the driver of the fiat car
and this circumstance in itself would be enough to show that there
was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the said
fiat car. The Tribunal also observed that testimony of PW1 remained
unchallenged, who specifically testified that the impact of the
offending vehicle was so strong that the car was dragged by the bus
up to a considerable distance. It would be thus manifest that the
Tribunal has given reasons for arriving at the said finding of the fact
on the aspect of negligence.
'Negligence' is a species of law of torts. Accordingly, negligence
is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something
which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, who
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 3 of 4
ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or be
obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent man would not
do. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or
objectively careless conduct. Negligence can be either contributory
negligence or composite negligence. In the instance case we are
concerned with contributory negligence. The question of contributory
negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the
claimants part, which is materially contributed to the damage caused,
and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as
negligence. In the instant case on perusal of the award and after
going into the reasoning of the Tribunal, it is clear that the question
of contributory negligence does not arise.
I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the finding arrived at
by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is
dismissed.
October 24, 2007 KAILASH GAMBHIR J.
rkr
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 4 of 4
MAC APP. No. 633/2007
Judgment delivered on: October 24, 2007
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Adv.
versus
Smt. Chander Kanta & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
CM 14325/2007
This is an application for condonation of delay in refiling the
appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 1 of 4
CM stands disposed of.
MAC APP. No. 633/2007
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of the Tribunal,
whereby an Award for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the petition till realization has been passed
in favour of the respondent, the appellant has preferred the present
th
appeal assailing the said order dated 18 October, 2006.
The main thrust of argument of the counsel for the appellant is
that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence led by the appellant and
has given undue weightage to the evidence adduced by the
respondent/claimant. The contention of the counsel for the appellant
is that the case in question is a case of contributory negligence where
not only the vehicle owned by the appellant, but the vehicle i.e. fiat
Car No. DNH-1485 in which the appellant was travelling, was equally
involved. Counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the liability of
the claim amount was to be apportioned by the Tribunal and the
appellant alone could not have been held responsible for the said
accident.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 2 of 4
length and have perused the records. The Tribunal has threadbare
discussed the aspect of the negligence in the impugned Award. The
Tribunal in its finding has observed that the FIR was registered by
the police only against the bus driver of the appellant and chargesheet
has also been filed against him. This fact has not only been admitted
by the driver of the appellant bus but also the conductor of the
offending bus, who gave his deposition as RW-2. The Tribunal also
observed that no FIR was registered against the driver of the fiat car
and this circumstance in itself would be enough to show that there
was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the said
fiat car. The Tribunal also observed that testimony of PW1 remained
unchallenged, who specifically testified that the impact of the
offending vehicle was so strong that the car was dragged by the bus
up to a considerable distance. It would be thus manifest that the
Tribunal has given reasons for arriving at the said finding of the fact
on the aspect of negligence.
'Negligence' is a species of law of torts. Accordingly, negligence
is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something
which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, who
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 3 of 4
ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or be
obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent man would not
do. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or
objectively careless conduct. Negligence can be either contributory
negligence or composite negligence. In the instance case we are
concerned with contributory negligence. The question of contributory
negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the
claimants part, which is materially contributed to the damage caused,
and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as
negligence. In the instant case on perusal of the award and after
going into the reasoning of the Tribunal, it is clear that the question
of contributory negligence does not arise.
I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the finding arrived at
by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is
dismissed.
October 24, 2007 KAILASH GAMBHIR J.
rkr
MAC App. 633 of 2007 pages 4 of 4