MAHAVIR PERSHAD Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi on the Appellants application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called "the Act", by which the claim of the Appellant and one Roshan Lal for compensation on account of injury caused as a result of the accident was dismissed on the ground that the accident resulting in the injuries to the Appellant could not be said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of a D.T.U. bus, belonging to Respondent No. 1, by Respondent No. 2 its driver.

(2.) THE appeal has been filed in the following circumstances. The Appellant and one Roshan Lal, who has since died, were traveling in D.T.U. bus No. DLP 776, belonging to Respondent No. l and driven, at the material time, by Respondent No 2 which suddenly swerved towards the right side of the road and struck a tree and as a result came to a halt causing shock and injuries to the Appellant. As a result of the accident the Appellant lost five teeth. Soon after the accident, report Ex. PW 8/A was lodged. The Appellant was examined by a doctor who found an injury in his lower jaw, four front teeth from the lower jaw were taken out and one upper teeth was extracted six days after the Appellant was brought to the hospital. The Appellant made claim for Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act on various heads, namely permanent loss of five teeth, disfigurement, loss of prospects, loss of prestige, loss of efficiency and shortening of life on the allegations that the bus was not being driven in an orderly manner by the Respondent No. 2. and due to his carelessness and rash and negligent driving it got out of control of the said Respondent and struck a tree on the road side of the road causing serious accident which resulted in the injuries to the Appellant besides other passengers. The Appellant further alleged that, apart from the loss of teeth, the Appellant also suffered many serious bruises and cuts an the face and other parts of his body and had been admitted to Willingdon Hospital. The claim was resisted by the Respondents and it was, inter -alia, denied that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No. 2.

(3.) IT appears that one of the other passengers who was injured as a result of the accident, Roshan Lal, filed a separate petition claiming compensation and both the petitions were apparently tried simultaneously and disposed of by a common Award. It further appears from the files of these two cases that while some evidence was recorded in one file, the remaining evidence was recorded in the other. While statements of PW2, Ram Prakash, A.S.I. Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi; P.W3, Ram Mehar, Constable Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi; P.W.4, Har Parshad, A.S.I. Daljit Singh, who is also described as PW4; Dr. S.C. Bhatia, Assistant Surgeon, Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW5; PW6, Ram Chand PW7, Dr. J.K. Dutta, Doctor Incharge Tilak Nagar Hospital, New Delhi; Ram Mehar Constable who was again examined as PW 8; PW9 Avtar Singh, A.S.I. Flying Squad, Shakti Nagar; and PW10 S.I. Chuni Lal, Traffic Officer, Delhi were recorded in the file pertaining to the Appellant's petition, the statements of Dr. N. Pinto, Staff Surgeon, Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW1; Krishan Kumar PW4; Dr. S.C Bhatia, Asstt. Surgeon Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW5; PW7 Dr. Surjit Kaur, Municipal Corporation Hospital, Tilak Nagar; PW8, the Appellant as his own witness; PW9 Roshan Lal, the other passenger; PW1 Satya Prakash Vats, Auditor, Office of Director Audit and Accounts, P & T Delhi; RW2 Kishan Lal, Respondent No. 2 as his own witness; RW3 Gurbaksh Singh, conductor of the bus and RW4 Ram Nath, Traffic Inspector, D.T.U. Delhi were recorded in the other file.