LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-253

ROSHNI DEVI Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

Decided On August 09, 2017
ROSHNI DEVI Appellant
V/S
KULWINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the claimant who is the mother of the deceased Manju, who expired in the accident.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 7.11.2013 Manju and her sister Meenu were coming to their village from Fatehabad in the offending bus bearing Registration No. HR-57/3076, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. At about 3.00 P.M. when the bus reached near the village Kharakheri, both of them requested the driver of the bus to stop the bus so that they could alight from the bus. However, the driver did not slow down the bus rather he stopped the bus after about one kilometer near a hotel. When Manju was in process of alighting from the bus, the respondent driver suddenly started the bus in a high speed. Due to this, Manju fell down on the road and received injuries on her head as well as over her body. The injured was shifted to MAMC, Agroha where she was provided first aid but was referred to Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar in view of the seriousness of the injuries. She was operated upon for the injuries. However, she remained totally unconscious because she was having head injury. She was discharged from the hospital on 19.12.2013 as there was no sign of improvement in her condition. She could not recover from the injuries despite spending of more than Rs. 10 lakhs by the petitioner and ultimately she expired on 31.12.2013. On account of her death, the mother of the deceased Manju filed claim petition claiming Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 the driver of the vehicle filed the written statement. He altogether denied the accident and said that the above said bus was never involved in this accident. Respondents No. 2 and 3 being the owner of the vehicle in question filed separate and joint written statement. They also claimed that the bus in question was not involved in the accident. It was further pleaded that false criminal case has been registered against the driver in this case. It was pleaded by respondents No. 2 and 3 that the bus in question was insured with respondent No. 4-Insurance Company.