Full Judgment Text
$~27 to 31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of decision: 23 December, 2024
+ MAC.APP. 677/2024 & CM APPL. 75956/2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Through its Regional Manager,
Ghaziabad Region, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
1. SAPNA
W/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar .....Respondent No. 1
2. DIVYANSHI
D/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar .....Respondent No. 2
3. CHANDRAKANT
S/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar .....Respondent No. 3
4. SITA
W/o Shri Yad Ram .....Respondent No. 4
5. YAD RAM
S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh .....Respondent No. 5
All residents of : -
H. No. 88, Gram Nivari,
Khanrika/Bhind, MP-477111
Also at: -
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 1 of 12
A-62, Gali No. 11, Ambedkar,
Ghaziabad, UP-201009
6. LRs OF DECEASED HAR PAL
S/o Jagroop Singh,
(LRs of driver-cum-regd. Owner of EECO also died in accident)
(i) JAGROOP SINGH
S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
R/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 6
7. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer of EECO Car),
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 .....Contested Respondent
8. RAM BHOOL (DRIVER)
S/o Shri Ramanand,
R/o Wajidpur, Jansath,
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. .....Proforma Respondent
Through: None.
28
+ MAC.APP. 678/2024 & CM APPL. 75977/2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Through its Regional Manager,
Ghaziabad Region, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
1. MUKESH (INJURED)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 2 of 12
S/o Shri Virender,
R/o J-285, Railway Colony,
Punjab Lan Kotwali,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. .....Respondent No. 1
2. LRs OF DECEASED HAR PAL
S/o Jagroop Singh,
(LRs of driver-cum-regd. Owner of EECO also died in accident)
(i) JAGROOP SINGH
S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
R/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 2
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer of EECO Car),
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 .....Contested Respondent
4. RAM BHOOL (DRIVER)
S/o Shri Ramanand,
R/o Wajidpur, Jansath,
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. .....Proforma Respondent
Through: None.
29
+ MAC.APP. 679/2024 & CM APPL. 75979/2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Through its Regional Manager,
Ghaziabad Region, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 3 of 12
1. LAKHAN (INJURED)
S/o Shri Nam Dev,
R/o H-140, Shahdara,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 1
2. LRs OF DECEASED HAR PAL
S/o Jagroop Singh,
(LRs of driver-cum-regd. Owner of EECO also died in accident)
(i) JAGROOP SINGH
S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
R/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 2
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer of EECO Car),
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 .....Contested Respondent
4. RAM BHOOL (DRIVER)
S/o Shri Ramanand,
R/o Wajidpur, Jansath,
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. .....Proforma Respondent
Through: None.
30
+ MAC.APP. 680/2024 & CM APPL. 75984/2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Through its Regional Manager,
Ghaziabad Region, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 4 of 12
versus
1. SACHIN (INJURED)
S/o Shri Nanak,
R/o 277, Gali No. 3,
Near Railway Station Sunderpuri,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. 201009 .....Respondent No. 1
2. LRs OF DECEASED HAR PAL
S/o Jagroop Singh,
(LRs of driver-cum-regd. Owner of EECO also died in accident)
(i) JAGROOP SINGH
S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
R/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 2
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer of EECO Car),
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 .....Contested Respondent
4. RAM BHOOL (DRIVER)
S/o Shri Ramanand,
R/o Wajidpur, Jansath,
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. .....Proforma Respondent
Through: None.
31
+ MAC.APP. 681/2024 & CM APPL. 75989/2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Through its Regional Manager,
Ghaziabad Region, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 5 of 12
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
1. GOPAL (INJURED)
S/o Shri Ramhet,
R/o 648/2, Barat Ghar Ke Pass,
Jhabarpurwa, Dibiyapur,
Auraiya, UP-206244 .....Respondent No. 1
2. LRs OF DECEASED HAR PAL
S/o Jagroop Singh,
(LRs of driver-cum-regd. Owner of EECO also died in accident)
(i) JAGROOP SINGH
S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
R/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 .....Respondent No. 2
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer of EECO Car),
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 .....Contested Respondent
4. RAM BHOOL (DRIVER)
S/o Shri Ramanand,
R/o Wajidpur, Jansath,
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. .....Proforma Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 75957/2024 (Exemption) in MAC.APP. 677/2024
CM APPL. 75978/2024 (Exemption) in MAC.APP. 678/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 6 of 12
CM APPL. 75980/2024 (Exemption) in MAC.APP. 679/2024
CM APPL. 75985/2024 (Exemption) in MAC.APP. 680/2024
CM APPL. 75990/2024 (Exemption) in MAC.APP. 681/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applications are disposed of.
MAC.APP. 677/2024
MAC.APP. 678/2024
MAC.APP. 679/2024
MAC.APP. 680/2024
MAC.APP. 681/2024
3. The present Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 have been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the Award dated
19.09.2024 vide which compensation amounts have been awarded on
account demise of Shri Rakesh Kumar , and injuries suffered by four injured
persons, in the road accident on 12.05.2019.
4. The grounds on which the impugned Award have been challenged
are: -
MAC.APP. 677/2024, MAC.APP. 678/2024, MAC.APP. 679/2024,
MAC.APP. 680/2024, MAC.APP. 681/2024
(i) That it is the case of head on collision and therefore, it is a case
of contributory negligence and the compensation amount
granted to the Claimants, is liable to be reduced; and
(ii) That the rate of interest has been granted @ 8% per annum
which is on the higher side, for which reliance has been placed
on the decision of Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta
and Others , (2006) 3 SCC 242.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 7 of 12
MAC.APP. 677/2024 (on account of demise of Sh. Rakesh
Kumar): An additional ground is taken:
(iii) That the Loss of Consortium has been granted to the
Claimants of deceased Shri Rakesh Kumar, by enhancing the same by
20% in view of the decision in National Insurance Company vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680. This Judgment of Pranay
Sethi (supra) is of 2017 and the enhancement of Loss of Consortium
by 20% has been incorrectly granted since the accident is of 2019.
Submissions heard and record perused.
5. The facts in brief are that on 12.05.2019, the UP Roadways Bus
bearing No. UP-11T-5527 was being driven by Shri Ram Bhool, Driver, on
the route Delhi to Rishikesh. At about 04:30 P.M., when the Bus reached
near Village Tigai, Khatoli, the EECO Car bearing No. DL-5CE-6832 which
was coming from the opposite direction, had a head on collision with the
Bus, in which Shri Rakesh Kumar died, while the other persons/Claimants
suffered injuries.
Contributory Negligence:
6. The first ground of challenge is that the Driver of EECO Car was
equally responsible in causing the head on collision.
7. The Claimants in support of their case, had examined three
eyewitnesses, namely, PW1/Gopal, PW2/Lakhan and PW3/Mukesh, who all
deposed that the offending UP Roadways Bus was being driven by its
Driver, Shri Ram Bhool at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner
without taking due precautions and blowing the horn. It came from the
opposite direction after changing its lane and hit the EECO Car with great
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 8 of 12
force. The eyewitnesses had been examined in extenso by the Appellant,
but no material contradiction could be brought forth.
8. Their testimony is fully corroborated by the site plan prepared by the
Investigating Officer while conducting the investigations in FIR No.
238/2019 wherein it is clearly depicted that the offending UP Roadways Bus
had suddenly changed its lane and got into the lane of the traffic coming
from the opposite direction and thereby caused the head on collision.
9. The Respondent/Shri Ram Bhool, Driver of the offending UP
Roadways Bus, had appeared as R1W1 and deposed that while he was
driving the said offending UP Roadways Bus, no accident took place.
However, he admitted in his cross-examination that he was arrested and
granted bail in the FIR No. 238/2019. He also admitted that the offending
UP Roadways Bus was seized by the local Police and subsequently released
on superdari . The evidence of the three eyewitnesses is fully corroborated
by the criminal investigations. The Chargesheet has also admittedly been
filed against Shri Ram Bhool, Driver of the offending UP Roadways Bus.
10. He tried to take a defence that the offending UP Roadways Bus at the
time of accident was parked in the Depot and he had gone back to his house.
However, he admitted that he had not filed any Application or complaint
against his alleged false implication.
11. Pertinently, the most relevant evidence to establish the defence that
the offending UP Roadways Bus was not on the road at the time of accident,
but was in the Depot, was to produce the Depot Record. But pertinently, no
Depot record has been produced as a proof of this defence.
12. The argument addressed on behalf of the Appellant that it was a head
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 9 of 12
on collision case and therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence, is not
tenable. There cannot be an inevitable conclusion in every head-on Collision
that it is a case of contributory negligence. The surrounding circumstances
have to be necessarily considered to ascertain if it is a case of contributory
negligence. In the present case, it has clearly come on record from the
testimony of the three eyewitnesses and from the investigations conducted
by the Police, that the offending UP Roadways Bus had deflected to the
opposite lane and thereby caused the head on collision. Under these
circumstances, no negligence whatsoever can be attributed to the driver of
the EECO Car.
13. The learned Claim Tribunal has rightly observed that the negligence
in causing the accident was solely of Shri Ram Bhool, the Driver of the
offending UP Roadways Bus. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere
with the findings of the learned Claim Tribunal.
Loss of Consortium in MACT No.403/2019:
14. The second ground of challenge to the impugned Award by the
Appellant is that the Loss of Consortium has been given to each of the
Claimants by the learned Claim Tribunal by enhancing it by 20%, even
though the accident had occurred in the year 2019, while the decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra) had come in 2017.
15. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that since three years had
not elapsed from 2017, 20% enhancement towards the Loss of Consortium
could not have been given.
16. However, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant is
completely fallacious for the simple reason that the decision in Pranay Sethi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 10 of 12
(supra) had merely explained the formula for calculating the Loss of
Consortium and it is not a new law that was laid down with prospective
effect. The accident in the present case had occurred on 12.05.2019, while
the compensation has been granted on 19.09.2024 vide the impugned
Award, i.e., after a period of four years. Since from the date of accident,
more than three years had elapsed, the learned Claim Tribunal has calculated
the Loss of Consortium by giving benefit of 10% increase after every three
year and thereby taking the Loss of Consortium as 20%. There is a marginal
difference in granting the compensation towards Loss of Consortium @
48,000/- to each of the Claimants.
17. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount
granted by the learned Claim Tribunal towards Loss of Consortium.
Rate of Interest:
18. The third ground of challenge to the impugned Award by the
Appellant is that interest @ 8% per annum so granted is on the higher side.
19. However, looking at the prevailing market rate and these are the
compensation petitions, there is no ground to interfere with the findings of
the learned Claim Tribunal.
Conclusion:
20. In view of above, there is no merit in the present Appeals which are
hereby dismissed along with pending Applications.
21. The statutory amount be returned to the Appellants, as per rules.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 11 of 12
JUDGE
DECEMBER 23, 2024
S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:08.01.2025
17:40:43
MAC.APPs. 677/2024, 678/2024, 679/2024, 680/2024, 681/2024 Page 12 of 12