LT. S.K. GANGULI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 395, 396 and 398 of 1981 since they arise out of the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra.

(2.) THE accident which is the basis of this litigation took place on 16th April, 1976. Lt. S.K. Ganguli, the Appellant in F.A.O. No. 395 of 1981, was a passenger in bus No. HYA 1295. So was Jaspal Singh deceased, whose next in kin are the Appellants in F.AO. No. 396 of 1981. The bus left Delhi during night for Chandigarh. It was being driven by Ajaib Singh Respondent. The bus struck into a stationary truck near Shahbad. In the accident, Jaspal Singh died and Lt. S.K. Ganguli suffered grievous injuries. The heirs of Jaspal Singh, being his widow Mohinder Kaur, two sons Shavinder Singh and Jagvinder Singh and a daughter Sukriti Kumari, preferred application for compensation. Similarly, S.K. Ganguli for the injuries suffered by him and the loss in his service, filed claim application for compensation. Since Ajaib Singh Respondent was held to be negligent in driving his bus and on the basis thereof the aforesaid two applications have been decided, the State of Haryana in F.A.O. No. 398 of 1981 has challenged that view, but only against S.K. Ganguli, for no compensation was paid to the heirs of Jaspal Singh deceased. F.A.O. No. 398 of 1981

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State pleaded that the accident took place due to act of God, for it could not be perceived by the driver that the road would be obstructed. Alternatively it was pleaded that Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, prohibits the road being blocked by a stationary vehicle and that the stationary truck which had violated that provision, was alone responsible. It is true that the driver of the stationary truck did defy the provisions of Section 81. But that would have at best established a case of composite negligence. One could have determined the share of blame with meticulous care had the driver/owner/insurer of that stationary truck been made parties to these proceedings. Since we do not have here the version of the stationary offending truck, it is futile to delve deep into that matter. Even if there is one per cent negligence of the bus driver (though not holding so) the recovery can yet be made from the owners of the offending bus. Thus, in my view the Tribunal rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants on the establishment of the neglect of the driver. F.A.O. 395 of 1981