MALTI DEVI Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 01.03.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellants filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments that on 27.10.2009, Phool Chand @ Ramu (Deceased), who was working as a skilled worker in the office of XEN Stores, Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar was standing near railway crossing, Nuhon Colony, GGSSTP, Ropar for boarding the bus to Power Colony, Ropar. At about 5.10 pm, bus bearing registration No. PB-06-1172 came there. When the deceased was in the process of boarding the bus, respondent No. 1 drove away the same without waiting for the whistle of the Conductor. As a result, Phool Chand slipped from the bus, fell down and was crushed under the rear wheels of the bus. He sustained multiple grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar but died on the way. Alleging that the death was caused wholly due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the claim petition was filed. It was stated that the accident was witnessed by Jaswant Singh son of Daya Singh. Other employees of GGST, Ropar had also gathered at the spot. DDR No. 7 dated 28.10.2009 was lodged at Police Station Sadar Ropar.

(3.) Respondent No. 1-driver of the bus filed written statement denying allegations. He claimed that the deceased sustained injuries due to his own fault. Respondents No. 2 to 5, (the Punjab State Electricity Board the owner of the bus and other officials of the Board) in their written statement claimed that Phool Chand fell down as he was trying to board the moving bus. Hence, he was solely responsible for his fall and there was no negligence on the part of the driver. It was also stated that appellants No. 1 and 2 as also the alleged witness Jaswant Singh had themselves submitted a statement to the Police that the driver was not at fault. Respondent No. 6 the insurer of the bus also contested the claim.