MAYA DEVI Vs. KARTAR BUS SERVICE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 2, 1979 at about 2.45 p.m. the Kartar Bus Service Bus PUX-3354, while on its way from Pathankot to Jullundur, suddenly went off the road and hit into a tree. This happened near Mukerian. As a result of this accident, Kamal Kumar, one of the passengers in this bus, sustained serious injuries on account of which he later died. The Tribunal declined the claim for compensation put-forth by Maya Devi, the mother of Kamal Kumar deceased holding that the accident occurred due to a latent defect in the bus and not due to rash or negligent driving thereof. It is this finding that is now challenged in appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver. The case pleaded being that the bus was being driven at a very fast speed and when it tried to give way to a bus coming from the opposite direction, the bus-driver lost control and it went and hit into a tree and it was then that serious injuries were caused to Kamal Kumar deceased to which he later succumbed. Both the bus-driver as also its owner denied that the accident had occurred on account of any rash or negligent driving of the bus. The accident was attributed to "the sudden and abrupt crack in the machinery" which was branded as the cause of the accident. It was said that this was a latent defect which could not be anticipated and for which neither the bus-driver nor the owner could be blamed.

(3.) THE case of the respondents, on the other hand, rests on the testimony of RW 1 Nand Kishore, the bus-driver who blamed the breaking of the stub axle of the bus for the accident. Nand Kishore deposed that while going over a slight bump on the road, the stub axle developed a crack and as a result thereof both this axle as also the tie-rod broke and the bus then went out of control and hit into a free. The speed of the bus was said to be about 60 kilometers per hour at that time. To corroborate his testimony regarding the breaking of the stub axle the respondent examined PW 2 Sohan Singh mechanic of the respondent bus-service who deposed that he checked the bus the day after the accident and found that the left stub axle had broken. Here Mr. Baldev Kapur counsel for the bus-owner cited Mandi Kulu Road Transport Corporation v. Janak Raj Singh and Ors. 1968 ACJ 363 where in dealing with an accident caused by a bus a similar defence of latent defect was raised in respect of the stub axle thereof, it was observed there "The stub axle cannot be seen and does not require any greasing or any other particular maintenance. If it develops a crack, the reason must be a defect or an imperfect workmanship on the part of the manufacturer. This defect cannot be discovered by any amount of dilligence on the part of the bus-owner, so long as the crack in the stub axle does not affect the performance and the running of the bus. This is what is called therefore a "latent" defect, that is to say a defect which cannot be discovered by reasonable dilligence on the part of the bus-owner".