Priyanka Singh
Published on: 30 September 2022 at 20:41 IST
The Delhi High Court in a recent judgement favoured the deceased in a 2011 accident involving a DTC bus, leading to a fatal crash and the subsequent death of a cyclist.
The 26-year-old deceased was injured in Saket in an accident with a DTC bus, where an FIR was registered against the driver, stating his driving as “rash and negligent.” After the unfortunate event, the cyclist was brought to the hospital where the doctors declared his death before being brought there.
It was disclosed as per the charge sheet that the death occurred as soon as the crash took place, and as per the post-mortem report, the death was caused due to “hemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries and due to blunt external force,which is possible in road traffic accidents”. In the course of investigation, it was also revealed that the driver’s driving license was fake.
After this, the family of the deceased approached the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal (South District, Saket Courts) which decided the matter in favour of the deceased and imposed a fine of Rs. 19,44,600 with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation of the full amount from the insurance company, while also granting the claimants the right to recover the amount jointly and severally from the DTC and their driver.
The DTC challenged the said order before the High Court of Delhi where Justice Gaurang Kanth, in his, judgement on September 23, held that the DTC (appellant) did not produce the original policy and driving licence of offender No.5 and did not come to the court to cite evidence when asked by the insurance company via a notice for the verification of details of the bus driver. This proved to be a breach of the insurance policy.
Observing the multiple occasions of rash and negligent driving that involved the high numbers of DTC buses, leading to injuries and deaths, the Court noted that, “A public transport undertaking is not expected to unleash untrained, incompetent, and unlicensed drivers upon the unsuspecting innocent public.”
The Court also observed the statutory authority of DTC and that it is “statutorily mandated to provide public transport facilities” in Delhi, expected to fact check its drivers with the possession of valid driving licenses and passing the special training.
It was concluded that the DTC, being the owner, had “failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care apropos use of the public transport bus for ferrying ordinary, unsuspecting passengers who board it with the bonafide belief that its driver is duly licenced and has undergone requisite training and has the competence to drive a public bus on the roads of Delhi.”