PREM DEVI Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a passenger travelling in a bus with his/her arm projecting outside the body of the bus, while resting it on the window thereof to be denied compensation for the injuries caused to such arm by the bus not leaving sufficient space while crossing or going past a vehicle or building ? Herein lies the main question which arises in this appeal.

(2.) THE claimant Smt. Prem Devi while travelling on the bus PND 4040 which was on its way to Beas from Kapurthala, suffered an injury on her left arm resulting in the amputation thereof, when on reaching village Gadana, it struck against a stationary bus. This happened on October 27, 1974.

(3.) A similar situation arose in Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Co. 1974 A.C.J. 87, where it was observed : It cannot be disputed that the driver of a bus which carries passengers owes a duty of care for the safety of passengers. While driving the must have the passengers in contemplation and he must avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably be foreseen to injure them and in deciding what acts and omissions he should avoid, he must bear in mind the normal habits of passengers. It is a matter of common experience that passengers who sit adjoining a window very often rest their arm on the window-sill by which act the elbow projects outside the window. The driver of the bus must have these passengers also in contemplation and therefore, while over-taking or crossing another vehicle on the road he must not come too close to the vehicle that is overtaken or crossed and he must leave sufficient gap between the vehicles to avoid injury to these passengers. The driver of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction owes a similar duty while crossing a passenger bus. He too must have in contemplation passengers sitting near the windows of the oncoming bus who may have their hands resting on the windows, and in crossing the bus he must not only avoid contact with the body of the bus but he must also avoid coming in contract with the elbow of any passenger that may be resting on the window and projecting outside the body of the bus. He must, therefore, take precautions to move to his rear side and leave sufficient gap for preventing any mishap. This view was approved and followed in Chaturji Amarji and Ors. v. Ahmad Rahimbux and Ors. 1980 A.CJ. 368. The position in law thus being as set out above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accident here must be attributed wholly to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.