CHHOTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISSATISFIED with the amount of compensation awarded, Chhoti Devi and others have preferred the present appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short 'the Tribunal'). Chhoti Devi and her minor children filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- on account of death of Pehlad Singh, husband of appellant No. 1, in a motor accident. She pleaded that she is widow and other claimants are minor children of deceased Pehlad Singh who was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 800/- per month by doing the job of weaving. It was alleged that the accident resulting in the death of Pehlad Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the respondents by denying the version of the accident as given by the claimants. Factum of accident was admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by Dharam Pal, its driver. The deceased was coming on a cycle from behind a bullock cart from the opposite side and all of a sudden he emerged by the side of the cart and having lost control of the cycle, hit the bus despite the fact that its driver in order to save the cyclist swerved towards left hand side. Relationship of the widow with the deceased as also his capacity to earn was also disputed.

(3.) MR . O.P. Verma, District Attorney, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents tried to dislodge the findings returned by the Tribunal by contending that the accident took place not on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver but the entire fault lay with the deceased Pehlad Singh whereas the claimants in their appeal tried to shift the entire burden of rash and negligent driving on the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, as already noticed, found both of them to be negligent and, thus, apportioned the liability as 50:50.