RAMESH GUPTA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal here is by the owner of the offending truck seeking to challenge his liability for the compensation awarded.

(2.) A drilling machine was being taken from Karnal to Ambala. It went out of order near Stiarif Garh Bridge. Sadhu Ram, who was the driver thereof, parked it on the side and got under it to repair it. It was then that truck PBT-5217 came from the side of Karnal and dashed into this drilling machine as a result of which Sadhu Ram sustained serious injuries and later died. This happened on May 25, 1982, at about 9. 30 p. m. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the truck-driver was wholly to blame for this accident. A sum of Rs. 70,000 was awarded as compensation to the widow and children of Sadhu Ram, the deceased. The liability for the payment of the compensation awarded was fastened upon the respondent-insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000 while the balance was held to be payable by the driver and the owner of the truck.

(3.) THE attempt in the first instance was to establish that this was a case of contributory negligence. The contention in this behalf being that the drilling machine had been parked on the metalled portion of the road without any parking light or other indication. A reading, however, of the testimony of P. W.-3, Sardara Ram who was travelling on this drilling machine with Sadhu Ram, the deceased, would show that the machine had been parked on the kacha portion of the road on the left hand side and what is more, both the front and the back lights of this machine were on when Sadhu Ram was repairing it. The light at the back was red. The only witness examined to controvert this was the truck driver, RW 1, Sohan Singh, who deposed that there were four or five vehicles coming from the opposite direction* with their head-lights on and it was on that account that he could not notice whether there was anything lying ahead of his truck and this is what led to his truck striking against the drilling machine. In other words, the truck driver admitted to being blinded by the headlights of the oncoming traffic. In this situation, it was clearly incumbent upon the truck driver to have stopped rather than to have proceeded ahead without knowing whether or not the road was clear. Negligence on the part of the truck driver is thus writ large. This being so, the finding of the Tribunal holding the truck driver to be wholly at fault, clearly warrants no interference in appeal.