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 (year ?). In fact the dependency loss work 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 25 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. 1,50,00/- (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/- 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.) FROM the narration of above events, it is clear that negligence was of the bus driver and not of the cyclist Nand Kishore who was coming on the correct side of his road. So far as the bus knocking the cyclist is concerned, I find no contradiction in the testimony of Sewa Ram and Anoop Singh. Their version of the accident is consistent that it was the bus which went on the wrong side of the road after hitting the motor-cycle and knocked down the cyclist Nand Kishore.