A
B
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 638
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
v.
ISLAMUDDIN
(Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2009)
JANUARY 23, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Compensation -
C Determination of - Contributory negligence by claimant -
Effect of - Motor accident resulting in injuries to claimant -
Compensation fixed by tribunal - However, deduction of 40%
on account of contributory negligence of claimant- Award of
Rs. 1,80,3581- - High Court holding that reasons indicated for
D deduction for contributory negligence not sufficient - On
appeal, held: There was contributory negligence -
Considering the nature of accident, Rs. 2,35,000/- awarded
with interest @ 6% from date of accident.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 423
of 2009.
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.
F
Sangeeta Kumar Syed, Mohd. Fazal and Ashwani Garg
G
H
for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard.
Leave granted.
This is an appeal against the order passed by a learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowing the appeal filed
638
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. ISLAMUDDIN 639
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
by the respondent who had filed a claim petition claiming
A
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
B
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 c
account of alleged contributory negligence were not sufficient
for the purpose of making a deduction.
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 D
on the part of the respondent leading to the accident in
question.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
E
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
F
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.
In the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that G
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
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
A 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.
B
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
N.J.
Appeal partly allowed.
...
' '
Lex