STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHAGWAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Haryana being aggrieved with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) has challenged the same primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal did not appreciate that it was the deceased Nand Kishore the cyclist who was at fault. That there was no negligence of the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HYA-1630. Moreover, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 years. Tribunal wrongly assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs.3,600/- per month. In fact the dependency loss works out to be much less.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge, the relevant facts of the case are that Nand Kishore (deceased) was going on his cycle at Mall Road. He was on the left side (correct side) of the road. Hardly had he reached near CRP Quarters when Haryana Roadways bus coming from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently in a fast speed hit a motor-cycle driven by one K.L.Pasricha (of FAO.No.222/83). Motor-cycle was going ahead of the said bus. After hitting the motor-cycle the said bus came on the wrong side of the road and knocked down Nand Kishore. After hitting Nand Kishore the bus could not stop because it was driven in a fast speed. It drove down for a quite considerable distance before coming to a halt. The cyclist Nand Kishore aged 24 years was killed at the spot.-Because of this accidental death of Nand Kishore his legal heirs i.e.his mother and father filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.00 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act). That petition was filed on 22nd May,1977. During the pendency of that petition father of the deceased Shri Jaman Dass died. His name was deleted from the array of parties on 10th February,1983. The Tribunal by the impugned award awarded a sum of Rs. 59,000.00 with costs. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned i.e. Haryana Roadways no liability was fixed on them. Interest was to accrue against respondents 1 and 4 if they failed to make payment of the awarded amount within two months.

(3.) Mr.l.S.Goel appearing for the appellant contended that the testimony of Mr.Sewa 'am (Public Witness-1) and of Mr.Anoop Singh (Public Witness-2) are contradictory to each other. Their testimony cannot be relied upon. Public Witness-1 and Public Witness-2 could not prove that any portion of the bus hit the cycle. This contention of Mr.Goel is against the record. In fact Mr.Sewa Ram (Public Witness-1) was the eye witness. He saw the happening of the accident. He testified that bus-bearing No.HYA-1630 was coming from Azadpur side on Mall Road. A motor-cycle was going ahead of the bus. The bus came at a very fast speed and without blowing any horn the said bus hit the motor- cycle and thereafter the bus went on wrong side of the road and knocked down the cyclist Nand Kishore. Thereafter the bus came to the correct side of the road. He further testified that the cyclist was almost killed at the spot. The cyclist was removed to the hospital. According to his perception the speed of the bus was between 70 to 80 KMPH. He, however admitted that bags were hanging on the carrier of the cycle but denied that the cyclist lost balance due to heavy weight or that it was cyclist who rammed into the bus. Mr.Anoop Singh (Public Witness-2) another eye witness was present on the spot with his friend at the beetles shop near Alpana Cinema on the corner of the Princess Road when he witnessed this accident. He in material terms corroborated the testimony of Mr.Sewa Ram, Public Witness-1. Mr.Goyel has not been able to point out any material contradiction in the testimony of Mr.Anoop Singh and that of Mr.Sewa Ram. Mr.Anoop Sigh, Public Witness-2 also testified that the bus after hitting the motor-cycle went to the wrong side of the road and hit the cyclist who was coming from the opposite direction. The cyclist was almost killed on the spot. Mr.Anoop Singh knew Nand Kishore from before. Nand Kishore was running a shop in Tagore Park. Mr.Anoop Singh had in fact informed the brother of Nand Kishore about this accident. The contention of Mr.Goyel that Mr.Anoop Singh was standing at 100 yards away from the place of accident hence could not have seen the accident, to my mind, this argument is not only devoid of merits but has no substance as facts on record fully proves that Public Witness-2 had in fact witnessed the accident. 100 yards is not such a distance that one could not see the bus hitting a motor-cycle and then the cyclist. Because of this accident anybody who was standing nearby would have ran to the spot to see what happened. That is precisely what Mr.Anoop Singh did. Contention of Mr.Goyel that cyclist Nand Kishore was carrying heavy bags on his carrier, therefore, lost balance, this suggestion had in fact been denied by Sewa Ram (Public Witness-1). If deceased was carrying packs of cigarettes that could not have made his cycle imbalance unless he was hit by a fast moving vehicle as in this case the bus. Similarly, Ms.Amrik Kaur (Public Witness-12) another eye witness of the accident described how the accident was caused by the bus. She was sitting on the pillion seat of motor-cycle No.CHU- 7469. She had taken lift from Mr.Pasricha. According to her, it was the bus driver who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He was driving the bus in a very fast speed. The bust first hit the motor-cycle and thereafter hit the cycle. Upto the stage the bus hit the motor-cycle she was an eye witness. Thereafter Sewa Ram (Public Witness-1) and Anoop Singh (Public Witness-2) testified that bus came on wrong side and hit the cyclist who was on his correct side of the road. Mr.Krishan Lal (Public Witness-29) also deposed that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn hit him and thereafter went on wrong side of the road and knocked down the cyclist who was coming from the opposite direction.