BALBIR SINGH Vs. PARMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 385 of 1982 filed by Balbir Singh, owner of four-wheeler No. 1 HRS--1632, F.A.O. No. 386 of 1982 filed by the Haryana Roadways, a Government of Haryana Undertaking, and the State of Haryana--owners of the bus No. HRR--4167, and Cross-Objections No. 40-CII of 1982 filed by Parmila Devi, widow, and Vikramjit and Rajesh Kumar-minor sons of Mohinder Singh, who died as a result of collision between the aforesaid two vehicles. The appeals as also the Cross-objections arise out of the award dated 17-3-1982 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat.

(2.) A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Mohinder Singh in the accident involving the bus and the four-wheeler on 27-4-1979 at about 9.30 AM on the Sonepat-Gohana road at a distance of about 2 kms. from village Barwasni towards Gohana and within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sadra Sonepat. It was alleged that Mohinder Singh who was aged 28 years and 7 months on the date of accident was a Graduate and was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Haryana State Electricity Board and was posted at Sonepat. He was drawing Rs. 520/- per month towards his pay and allowance. He however, used to reside in his village Mohana along with the claimants. They pleaded that on 27-4-1979 the deceased was waiting at Mohana bus-stand for a bus to take him to Sonepat to enable him to reach his office in time but the bus did not arrive. In the meanwhile, the four-wheeler owned and driven by Balbir Singh appellant insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 6 came there and it was proceeding towards Sonepat. The deceased boarded it and while on way to Sonepat a collision took place between the four-wheeler and the bus which was coming from the side of Sonepat and proceeding towards Gohana. The bus was being driven by Bhim Singh, its driver, respondent No. 5. It was alleged that the collision was the result of rash and negligent driving of the four-wheeler and the bus by their respective drivers. The deceased suffered fatal injuries. A lady passenger in the bus like wise suffered fatal injuries. Both of them died at the spot. It was claimed that the deceased (Mohinder Singh) would have earned at least Rs. 2,17,000/- during his life" time which he would have spent on the maintenance of the claimants. Since his life had been cut short by the fatal accident, the claimants had suffered monetary loss to this extent besides suffering mental agony. On this basis of the claim for compensation was made which was contested by the respondents. The State of Haryana, the Haryana Roadways, as also Bhim Singh, the driver of the bus, in their written statement did not deny the factum of the death of Mohinder Singh in the accident or the fact that he was travelling in the four-wheeler at the time of occurrence. They, however, denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus was being driver. It was instead pleaded that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and that the accident had taken place because of the breaking of the front right side leaf of the bus as a result of which the bus turned turtle and while it was so lying the four-wheeler coming from the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently struck against the bus. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the four-wheeler who had been challaned by the police and a case was registered against him vide first information report No. 50 dated 27-4-1979 at Police Station Sadar Sonepat. Balbir Singh in his separate written statement also did not dispute that Mohinder Singh died in the said accident. He also did not dispute the fact that the deceased was travelling in the four-wheeler being driven by him when he suffered the fatal injuries. He, however, denied that he was driving the four-wheeler rashly and negligently or that the accident had taken place on that account. He instead pleaded that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus which had struck against the four-wheeler being driven by him at a low speed and on correct side of the road. He alleged that the police had wrongly challaned him instead of registering case against the bus driver. He further pleaded that in any case the four-wheeler was insured with the Insurance Company respondent No. 6. He, thus, repudiated his liability to pay any amount on account of compensation. The Insurance Company respondent No. 6 in its written statement denied that the deceased was travelling in the four-wheeler at the time of accident. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the four-wheeler was a goods vehicle and the risk of a passenger in the goods vehicle was neither covered nor required to be covered under the insurance policy or under the Motor Vehicles Act, and as such it was not liable for the payment of any compensation.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 was decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants and it was held that they are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased and were thus entitled to maintain the claim petition. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and it was held that the death of Mohinder Singh was caused due to the collision between the bus and the four-wheeler and that both the said vehicles were being driven rashly and negligently by their respective drivers when the accident took place. Under issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal concluded that the claimants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 64,000/-. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the respondent Insurance Company and it was held that the said Insurance Company was not liable for involvement of the four-wheeler in the accident because it was a goods-carrier and the passengers carried by it was not covered by the insurance policy. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the claimants. The claim was held to be within limitation. Issue No. 6 was decided against the respondents and it was held that the claim-petition was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As a consequence, the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 17-3-1982 awarded Rs. 64,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount from Balbir Singh appellant, the Haryana Roadways, the State of Haryana and the driver of the bus Bhim Singh, who were held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said amount.