LAWS(P&H)-1994-4-35

PRIMLA DEVI Vs. PUNJAB STATE

Decided On April 29, 1994
PRIMLA DEVI Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order May 15, 1984 passed by the learned Single Judge in F. A. O. No. 201 of 1979 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants. The learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment and order dated February 20, 1979 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar dismissing the claim petition of the appellants.

(2.) THE appellants (Claimants) on January 2, 1978 filed a claim petition, claiming Rs. 1,50,000/by way of compensation, Under Section 110 B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Appellants No. 2 to 5 are childien and appellant No. 6 is the mother. It was alleged in the claim petition that deceased Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was knocked down by a public vehicle owned by respondents No. 1 and 2. The accident took place on June 29, 1977 and in the accident Keshva Nand suffered multiple injuries. Due to injuries to skull and brain, he died in the hospital. Respondent No. 3 is the driver of the said bus. It is alleged by the appellants that deceased Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was going on his bicycle towards Nangal Town. The public vehicle driven by respondent No. 3. was coming from the opposite direction and it was being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. Since the bus was driven at a high speed, its driver was unable to control it and as a result thereof Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was knocked down. The appellants have in all claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that deceased Keshva Nand was driving his bicycle on the wrong side and since he puzzled while taking the turn he dashed against the public vehicle. He also held that the vehicle was not driven at a high speed.