KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. In an accident between the car PUG. 2512 and the Punjab Roadways bus. P.N.H. 9856, coming from the opposite direction, Jang Bahadur, the car driver, was killed ,as also Urmila, one of the persons travelling in this car, while Samir Jindal, an eight-year old by sustained injuries. This happened on October 13, 1978, at about 3 p.m. on the Grand trunk road between Kartarpur and Jullundur.

(2.) IT was the finding of the Tribunal that this was a case of contributory negligence with both the car driver as also the bus driver being equally at fault. A sum of Rs. 63,300/- was awarded as compensation to the widow and son of Jang Bahadur deceased, Rs. 54,000/- to the husband and children of Urmila deceased and Rs. 2,000/- Were awarded to Samir Jindal for the injuries he suffered in this accident.

(3.) THE respondents, on their part, examined the bus driver RW 1 Mohinder Singh and RW 2 Sarup Singh, who claimed to have been travelling in the bus at the time of the accident. Mohinder Singh deposed that the accident occurred when the bus reached parallel to a truck coming from the opposite direction and suddenly from behind this truck, the car emerged to overtake it and thereby struck against the right front corner of his bus. Similar was the testimony of RW 2 Sarup Singh. As regards Sarup Singh, it must be observed that it was for the first time in Court that he came forth to state that he had witnessed the occurrence or that this was the manner in which it had occurred. He did not appear 'before' the police in the investigation of this case, nor did he appear as a defence witness for the bus driver in the criminal case registered against him. The Tribunal thus rightly did not consider it safe to rely upon his testimony. Turning to the bus driver Mohinder Singh, the striking feature of his testimony and conduct is the lack of any protest of innocence after the accident occurred, if indeed it had happened in the manner he deposed, to other words, if he was not to blame for this accident, and there being a bus full of passengers with him at that time, surely, he would have got some of them to support him before the investigating officer. The bus driver in fact did not make any report of this accident to the police. This is indeed a telling circumstance against the bus driver. At any rate, once it is accepted that the bus driver's version of the accident is not worthy of belief, there was clearly no warrant for treating this to be a case of contributory negligence. The circumstances of the case and the evidence on record lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the negligence here was entirely that of the bus driver. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence must thus be modified accordingly.