MUKTA CHAUDHARY Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the award of dismissal of the petition for compensation for damages resulting to a building alleged to be owned by the claimant by the act of the driver of Haryana Roadways, who dashed against the building and caused extensive damage to the building. The petition had been originally filed at the instance of Dr. Nand Chaudhary, claiming to be the owner of the building, which had been damaged in the accident that was said to have taken place on 18.4.2001. During the pendency of the proceeding, the husband had died and the wife had impleaded herself as a parry and later moved an application for amendment of the pleading to state that she was herself the owner of the building; that the petition had been originally filed although the husband was owner. As regards the impleadment of the wife as a legal representative after the death of the husband, there had been no objection and therefore, the impleadment was ordered subject to all just exceptions. However, as regards the amendment sought to be made contending that she was herself the owner of the property, an additional written statement was filed by all the respondents denying that she was owner of the property.

(2.) The petition for compensation was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the claimant had not established the ownership with reference to the building. The fact that there has been an accident on 18.4.2001 and that the house in which the claimant was living had been damaged itself was not in dispute. It is in evidence that immediately after the accident, a complaint had been given with the police and the police had also registered a complaint against the driver of the bus for having caused damage to the house. The photographs had also been filed and it showed that the bus had not merely dashed against the car which had remained parked near the gate of house, it had also dashed against the front portion of the building and photograph P/12 showed that there had been a serious damage to the wall of the bathroom and the bathroom fittings had also been seem damaged.

(3.) The driver filed a reply contending that there had been no accident at all but in the latter part of the statement, there was an admission of the fact that there was an accident when he attempted to apply the brake, while crossing the road, the brake failed and it dashed against the car which had been parked. His statement, however, was to the effect that no part of the building had been damaged but it had stopped just at the gate of the house. The respondents No.2 and 3, who were the owner of the bus and the State Authorities, filed a written statement accepting that there had been an accident and that there had also been damage to the building. The particular portion of the written statement with reference to the accident would require to be reproduced, for that would show that it was never the contention of the respondents that the building did not belong to the claimant or there had been no accident at all. It could be seen from para 25 as follows:-