REPORTABLE         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL No.       OF 2009    (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18196  of 2007)        

U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus    ISLAMUDDIN ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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 by the respondent who had filed a claim

petition  claiming 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

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

-2-

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 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.

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  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  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 the basis of present order

shall be deposited with MACT within six weeks.

-3-

The respondent shall be  permitted to withdraw the amount on such terms as the

MACT shall stipulate.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  No costs.

              ...................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

                  ....................J.                          ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 23, 2009.