Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. versus ISLAMUDDIN

Decided
23 January 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 638 · 2009 INSC 71

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard. Leave granted.

p. 638, margin F

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 account of alleged contributory negligence were not sufficient for the purpose of making a deduction.

pp. 638–639, margin G

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.

p. 639, margin C

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.

p. 639, margin D

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.

p. 639, margin E

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 A the basis of present order shall be deposited with MACT within six weeks.

pp. 639–640, margin G

The respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the amount

p. 640

on such terms as the MACT shall stipulate. B The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

p. 640

N.J. Appeal partly allowed.

p. 640

...

p. 640