STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana by which a compensation of Rs. 14,000/- was awarded to Kehar Singh respondent for the injury sustained by him in an accident. Kehar Singh lost his right arm which was completely severed from his body at the time of the accident. There is no dispute that on July 7, 1970 at about 2 p.m. the Punjab Roadways Bus PNS 3020 in which the claimant was travelling was going from Ludhiana to Dakha. The Bus was driven by Mukhtiar Singh respondent. Another Bus PUL 1331 belonging to Sheikhupura Transport Company come from the opposite direction with Kashmir Singh respondent as its Driver. The claimant was sitting on the back seat of the Roadways Bus and it is stated that he was resting his right arm on the window of the bus. when the two buses crossed each other, the front partition of the bus belonging to the Company hit into the hind portion of the Roadways Bus which resulted in complete severance of the arm of the claimant.

(2.) In the claim, allegations of rash and negligent driving were levelled against the drivers of both the buses. The two drivers apart from controverting the allegations and pleading contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in extending his arm out of the window of the bus tried to shift the responsibility to the other. The Tribunal came to a finding that both the drivers of the two buses as also the claimant had been negligent. The compensation amount of Rs. 21,000/- in all, was assessed for the loss of limb, medical expenses, pain and suffering undergone by the claimant. One-third amount was deducted on account of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/- was ordered to be paid in equal shares by the appellant Roadways and the Insurance Company with which the bus of Shekhupura Transport Company was insured. The appeal before this Court was filed by the Punjab State and the Punjab Roadways in respect of their liability to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-. There is no appeal either by the other transport Company or even by the claimant.

(3.) The learned Advocate-General has taken me through the extracts of the depositions of the relevant witnesses. He has tried to emphasise that there is no negligence on the part of the Punjab Roadways Bus in this accident. The argument is based mainly on the circumstance that the other bus had struck at the hind portion of the Roadways Bus indicating that if at all there was rash and negligent driving, it was by the driver of the other bus. It is not possible to agree with this contention. The statement of Kashmir Singh Driver of the other bus as also the evidence of other witnesses who travelled in the bus with the injured person brings out the clear fact that not only the driver of the Roadways Bus but also the other driver were driving their vehicles at a very fast speed. It appears and this fact is borne out by the testimony of Kashmir Singh PW also that just at the time when the two vehicles were crossing each other, the driver of the Roadways Bus, perhaps with a view to have more clear space, decided to turn his vehicle towards the left, as a result of which the back portion of his vehicle was exposed to collusion with the front portion of the other bus. The drivers of both the vehicles coming from the opposite direction from quite a distance. They were both called upon to exercise due caution and care to leave sufficient space in between them while crossing each other. It cannot be said that merely because one of them had not cooperated in this respect, the other would be absolved from his liability. The Tribunal was, therefore, quite correct in holding that the driver of the Roadways Bus was equally responsible for causing the accident. This finding is affirmed.