HANSA DEVI Vs. PARASHAR PARSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I shall decide above two appeals. Both the appeals have been preferred against the same award dated 18th September, 1992; one by the insurance company and other by the claimants. While claimants have claimed enhancement in the compensation, the insurance company has assailed the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. There is no appeal by owner of the vehicle. The claim petition before the Tribunal was contested by the owner of the vehicle on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The insurance company in its written statement before the Tribunal had supported the owner on the issue of negligence but had taken a stand that liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.15,000/- only because the deceased in this case was a passenger and each passenger of bus was insured only for Rs.15,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that Sh. Bishan Singh was travelling in a bus bearing No.DEP-4106 plying on DTC route No.40. When the bus was taking a turn from Connaught Place, Outer Circle to Parliament Street, Sh. Bishan Singh, who was standing near the front gate of the bus, jumped from the moving bus, fell down and struck against pavement. He was removed to hospital where he died. In the claim petition it was alleged by legal heirs of the deceased that he was standing near front gate of the bus and fell down due to a jerk as the driver had suddenly applied brakes. However, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal was to the effect that Sh. Bishan Singh while in the bus cried that he had boarded a wrong bus and the bus should be stopped, as he wanted to get down from the bus. The bus was slowed down by the driver at the turning and before he could get down from the bus, bus picked up the speed and he fell down on the road. Testimony of three witnesses was recorded before the Tribunal regarding how the accident had happened and from this testimony; the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the passenger had boarded a wrong bus. He cried for stopping the bus and the driver slowed down the bus but before he could get down, the driver speeded up the bus and, therefore, it was negligence of the bus driver. While calculating the compensation, the Tribunal considered that Sh. Bishan Singh could not be considered as a passenger of the bus since his one foot was on the footboard and other foot was on the road as he was trying to alight from the moving bus and, therefore, he was a third party.

(3.) Although, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding negligence of the bus driver is farfetched and the Tribunal only seemed to be moved by the fact that the deceased had left behind five young children and a widow and somehow deceased should be helped, therefore, the Tribunal seems to have thrown all norms of appreciation of evidence to the dustbin and considered the evidence in a manner to make driver negligent. The Tribunal had observed in its judgment that deceased was an educated person and he could not have jumped from the moving bus forgetting that the Tribunal itself observed at another place that one foot of the deceased was on the road and other foot was on the footboard while the bus was moving. No doubt, the passenger seems to be educated but there is no presumption that educated persons do not commit mistakes or fallacies or do not board and get down by jumping from the moving buses in Delhi. If it is believed that the passenger had boarded a wrong bus and wanted the bus driver to stop the bus, next bus stand of Parliament Street that fell near Jantar Mantar, was hardly 200 yards away from the turning where this passenger jumped from the bus. The passenger could have waited for the bus to halt at the bus stand and got down from the bus at bus stop and then boarded other bus but it only seems that to save a foot walk of 200 yards, he jumped to his death. However, since no appeal has been preferred by the owner, this court cannot go into the issue of negligence. The only issue to be decided is whether Sh. Bishan Singh could be equated with a third party and whether liability of the insurance company was unlimited as has been held by the Tribunal.