SHAKUNT Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani. The claimants i.e. widow, two minor sons and a minor daughter claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death caused by Lal Singh driver of bus No. HRF 5185 on account of his rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. He was the employee of the respondent State.

(2.) THAT the deceased Ranjit Singh, aged about 36 years, was working as a Junior Engineer in Haryana State Electricity Board and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1338.50. He was travelling in the bus standing near the window on 7-5-1982. The bus was going from Hissar towards Delhi. When it reached near Mundhal, a tanker came from the opposite direction, while the bus was behind a tractor going ahead of it. The bus driver attempted to over take the tractor by swerving the bus towards right side. In order to attain the said object, he speeded up the bus. On seeing the tanker coming from the opposite direction, the driver suddenly applied brakes to the bus which was going at high speed, resultantly the window opened, as it did not bear the jerk. As a consequence of it, the deceased fell down from the bus and was crushed under the rear wheel of the bus.

(3.) NEITHER any criticism worth the name has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the State with respect to reasoning adopted by the Tri bunal nor any fact was brought to my notice for disbelieving the witnesses of the claimants. The statements are convincing, natural and untainted. The witnesses did not have any interest in the deceased. Having read the transcript of evidence of claimants and respondent, I find no error in the finding arrived at by the tribunal with respect to the death having been caused, due to rash and negligent Act or driving of the driver. The defen dants evidence lacks in necessary supporting evidence as well as the circum stances. RW 2 contradicts RW 3 on the material aspect i.e. that the decea sed Jumped from a running bus which is the defence taken in the written statement. RW 3 possibly could not have observed the fact of the application of brakes.