KRISHNA KANT PANDEY Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1980, rendered by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Saharanpur, thereby rejecting the claim petition No. 1 of 1979 preferred by the appellant in respect of accident which occurred on 25.7.1978 involving bus No. HYB 664 of Haryana Roadways. The claimant-appellant was employed as an Inspector in the E.S.I. Corporation, Saharanpur, at the time of the accident. The bus was being driven by driver Permanand.

(2.) It would appear from a perusal of the record that at the time of accident, the front right tyre of the bus suddenly deflated resulting in the ill-fated bus deflecting and dashing against the tree on the roadside. The claimant, besides driver of the bus and the other co-passengers, sustained injuries in the accident which occurred due to the vehicle dashing against the tree. The appellant has staked claim to Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. The claim was contested by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani, who filed a written statement refuting the allegations that the accident came about due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. According to him, the vehicle was proceeding at a normal speed when suddenly the front right tyre of the bus got burst and the driver, in spite of best possible efforts, could not retain control over the vehicle and it came to a halt only after hitting a roadside tree. The accident, according to the respondent, was one beyond the control of the driver. In support of his case, the claimant-appellant examined himself as PW 1 and one Harpal Singh, as PW 2. Harpal Singh was not one of the passengers travelling in the bus but is said to be present at the scene of occurrence and to have witnessed the same.

(3.) The Tribunal found it established that the claimant suffered multiple injuries in the accident in question besides a portion of his right foot below the toe being sliced off and that he has ever since been making use of the said foot with the aid of an artificial limb. On the question of expenditure incurred by the appellant on his treatment, the Tribunal found that the plaintiff incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- in connection with the treatment of his injuries. This finding is based on the statement of the appellant himself. Tribunal further found the appellant entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,000/- in expiation of the lost part of his foot, now in use with artificial limb. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the appellant suffered no loss of income due to injuries sustained by him inasmuch as he continued to be in the same grade with the same emoluments, etc., without any likely loss of promotion in future. According to the Tribunal, the appellant was at best entitled to a compensation of Rs. 8,000/-but refrained from awarding the compensation on the finding that the accident was not as a sequel to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. It was on the finding that the vehicle was not being driven rashly and that the driver averted a major accident due to his effective control of the vehicle and his retaining proper presence of mind in the moment of crisis that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.