Skip to content


Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Subhash Chand and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Motor Vehicles

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal from Order No. 295 of 1983

Judge

Reported in

[1990]68CompCas710(P& H)

Acts

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 95

Appellant

Delhi Transport Corporation

Respondent

Subhash Chand and anr.

Appellant Advocate

V. Ram Sarup, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

G.S. Chawla, Adv. for respondents Nos. 1 and 2

Disposition

Appeal allowed

Excerpt:


- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party..........sum of rs. 21,502.7. on the date which has now come on record, keeping in view the norm of 5 lakhs kilometres for the scrapping of vehicles and the fact that the bus has already covered more than half of this mileage at the time the accident occurred, the value of the bus on that date deserves to be taken to be about half its original price, that is, at around rs. 90,000. further, as has been mentioned earlier, it was sold as scrap after the accident for rs. 21,000 odd. the loss so suffered by the corporation would work out to around rs. 70,000. this being a case of composite negligence, with both the bus driver and the truck driver being equally at fault, the amount recoverable by the corporation must be taken to be half this sum, namely, rs. 35,000 from each.8. the truck involved in the accident was admittedly insured with the new india assurance company. mr. g.s. chawla, counsel for the respondent-insurance company, sought to contend that the liability of the insurance company in respect of damage to property was limited to rs. 2,000 and he adverted in this behalf to the provisions of section 95 of the motor vehicles act. a reference to the policy of insurance, exhibit r-6,.....

Judgment:


S.S. Sodhi, J.

1. The claim here relates to compensation for the damage caused to the bus involved in the accident.

2. The Delhi Transport Corporation bus DHT 2611 was involved in an accident with a truck DHL 3900 coming from the opposite direction. Three persons travelling in the bus were killed in this accident, they being the driver, conductor and a passenger, Lal Chand. This happened on February 2, 1981, at about 5.30 p.m., on the Delhi-Jaipur Road. It was the finding of the Tribunal that this was a case of composite negligence and both the bus driver as also the truck driver were equally to blame.

3. Extensive damage was caused to the bus in this accident and it has come on record that, as a result thereof, the bus had to be written off as atotal loss.

4. The Delhi Transport Corporation filed the present claim seeking a sum of Rs. 2,23,200 as compensation, Rs. 1,80,000 as the price of bus and the balance being the amount paid out by the Corporation as compensation to the injured in this accident. The claim in appeal now is, of course, confined to the damage to the bus.

5. The only witness examined with regard to the damage to the bus was A. W. 9, S.P. Narula, the assistant works manager. A reading of his testimony would show that the original price of the new bus was Rs. 1,80,000 and according to their rules, 10 per cent, per annum is the depreciation allowed on the value of the vehicle. On the date of the accident, the value of this bus, as recorded in their books, was Rs. 1,42,519. According to this witness, the assessment of this loss was recorded in exhibit A-5. A reference to the document, exhibit A-5, would shows that the approved claim forscrapping of vehicles was 5 lakhs kilometres or 8 years. The mileage for the bus in question upto the date of accident was 2,90,958 kilometres, which would mean that almost 3/5ths of the claim for scrapping in kilometres had already been covered by this bus.

6. During the hearing of this appeal, a question was raised with regard to the scrap value of the bus after the accident and the price at which it may have been disposed of. According to the affidavit, now filed by the purchase officer of the corporation, Mr. N.D. Khurana, the bus was sold as scrap in March, 1985, for a sum of Rs. 21,502.

7. On the date which has now come on record, keeping in view the norm of 5 lakhs kilometres for the scrapping of vehicles and the fact that the bus has already covered more than half of this mileage at the time the accident occurred, the value of the bus on that date deserves to be taken to be about half its original price, that is, at around Rs. 90,000. Further, as has been mentioned earlier, it was sold as scrap after the accident for Rs. 21,000 odd. The loss so suffered by the corporation would work out to around Rs. 70,000. This being a case of composite negligence, with both the bus driver and the truck driver being equally at fault, the amount recoverable by the corporation must be taken to be half this sum, namely, Rs. 35,000 from each.

8. The truck involved in the accident was admittedly insured with the New India Assurance Company. Mr. G.S. Chawla, counsel for the respondent-insurance company, sought to contend that the liability of the insurance company in respect of damage to property was limited to Rs. 2,000 and he adverted in this behalf to the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A reference to the policy of insurance, exhibit R-6, would, however, show that the limit of liability mentioned therein was Rs. 50,000. It is well-settled that the limit of liability, as mentioned in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, merely mentions the minimum sum in respect of which insurance cover must be provided. There is no bar to the insurance company taking upon itself a higher liability. The mere fact, therefore, that a sum of Rs. 2,000 is the figure mentioned in this provision of law cannot absolve the insurance company from the higher liability mentioned in the insurance policy.

9. The compensation payable to the Delhi Transport Corporation in respect of the damage to their bus is consequently hereby enhanced to Rs. 35,000, which the corporation shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded.

10. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

11. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //