HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant, Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short the HRTC) against award dated 10.1.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuinal, Chandigarh, awarding compensation of Rs.1,24,800/- to the claimants(respondents herein) on account of death of Ajaib Singh in motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.5.1986.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 24.5.1986, Ajaib Singh resident of village Lakhnaur Sahib had come to Chandigarh to see a patient at PGI at about 5 P.M. After seeing the patient, he reached Bus Stand, Sector 17, Chandigarh to catch a bus for Ambala to reach his village. As he wanted to enter the bus bearing registration No.HPA-2165 from its front door when the same was standing near the outer gate of bus stand, respondents No.4 and 5, namely, driver and conductor of the bus, started the bus as a result of which Ajaib Singh fell down and the bus ran over him. He was taken to PGI where he was declared brought dead. The driver of the bus was stopped by the passengers and the public present at the spot. The body of deceased had to kept in General Hospital till 3.6.1986 as the police failed to locate his whereabouts, whereafter the post-mortem examination was conducted. Finally, on 9.6.1986 the brother of the deceased, namely, Daljit Singh identified the deceased from his photograph and clothes which were in possession of the police. On his statement, case FIR No.245 dated 24.5.1986 under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered in Police Station, Central, Chandigarh. The legal heirs of the deceased, namely, widow, three sons and one daughter, then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation.

(3.) Upon notice of claim petition, respodnents 1 and 2 failed to appear in Court and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. The name of respondent No.5 was deleted after being given up by the order of the Court. The claim petition was contested by respondents 3 and 4 who filed their separate written statements. Respondent No.3 while admitting the accident, denied the averment that the deceased opened the door of the bus and wanted to enter the bus from its front door or that the bus was standing at the outer gate of the bus stand. It was stated that the bus being a delux coach bus had black-glasses with one door for coming and going out located in the centre of the left side and that the door cannot easily open from outside and has to be opened from inside. It was further stated that the bus is parked in the main bus stand near the booking counter towards the main gate. On the fateful day, the bus had left the bus stand at 5.30 PM and had just covered a few yards beyond the outer gate when a lady passenger of the bus shouted regarding falling of a person from behind upon which the bus was immediately brought to halt and it was found that the deceased while trying to jump at the bus from a wall of the outer gate had fallen down and in that process the wheel of the bus over-ran him. It was further stated that the accident took place entirely due to negligence of the deceased himself.