RADHIKA DEVI Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident claim petition. Ashok Kumar, deceased, young son of the appellant, was fatally injured while boarding bus no. UPC 5576 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 22.2.1982 at about 7.30 a.m. He was aged about 19 years and was a student of B.Sc. Part I.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the claimant, the bus in question was a city bus passing through Nadeshwar crossing while going to Kutchehri. The deceased wanted to board the bus and after giving a signal to the bus to stop, when the bus had slowed down, he caught hold of the handle and boarded the footboard but the driver suddenly speeded the bus as a result of which he fell down and was crushed under the wheels. There was initially a controversy as to whether the bus in question was really involved in the accident or not. However, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the bus was involved in the accident and blood stains were found on the type of the bus when the police was able to trace out the bus. This fact is also admitted by the driver and conductor of the bus in their testimony. In view of this it is not necessary to go over the evidence on this point again. The learned Counsel has also not been able to show anything which may persuade me to take a different view of the matter.

(3.) THIS evidence clearly establishes the case of the claimant that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in starting the bus suddenly when the passenger was in process of boarding the same. On the other hand the Corporation had examined the driver and bus conductor who have tried to feign ignorance about the accident and throughout maintained that they never came to know that anybody had been crushed under the bus. It is admitted that DW1 Jawahar was driving the offending bus on the fateful day. DW3 Chandra Shekhar was conductor of the bus. However, they maintained that till the time the bus came back to the workshop they did not know that anybody had been crushed by that bus. Their evidence is one of total ignorance about the accident. We, are, therefore, left only with the testimony of PWs to come to the conclusion as to whether the accident had taken place or not. In view of the fact that blood stains were found on the type of the bus and in view of the admitted position that soon after the accident there was student unrest as the bus driver had run away after the accident clearly goes to show that the bus in question was involved in the accident. Even the driver had to admit that this bus was later on traced by the police as the offending bus and thereafter on examination of the same it was found that its tyre had blood stains on it. In this manner it stands fully established that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the driver in starting the bus suddenly while the deceased was trying to board the bus after it had stopped on being signalled to stop it by the deceased near the bus-stop.