STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an accident between the Haryana Roadways bus HYK-262 and an unidentified truck coming from the opposite direction; the right arm of the claimant-Ram Pal, who was travelling in the bus and sitting beside a window, got crushed and was amputated from the shoulder. This happened on June 13, 1983 on the Ropar-Nangal Road.

(2.) THE Tribunal came to the finding that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimant, was awarded as compensation.

(3.) MR. M. S. Jain, Addl. Advocate-General, Haryana sought to assail the finding of negligence by adverting to the writing exhibit R/1. The case as set up by the bus-driver with regard to this writing being that the accident was reported to the police of police station Anandpur Sahib, where the claimant, his wife and one Sarmukh Singh stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck coming from the opposite direction and the bus driver was not at all at fault. It is pertinent to note that this writing exhibit R/1 was not put to the claimant when he came into the witness box nor was any question asked from him with regard to it. The other eye-witness PW 4 Vinod Kumar was the only witness from the side of the claimant to whom a suggestion to this effect was made, but it was categorically denied by him. The writing exhibit R/1 came on record for the first time during the statement of the bus-driver R. W. 1 Mulkh Raj. The version, he came forth with regard to it is clearly at variance with what was set forth in the written statement. Here, he deposed that the police had come to the hospital at Nangal and enquired from the claimant-Ram Pal whether he wished to register any case, but Ram Pal declined as he (bus-driver) was not at fault and it was then that the claimant gave the writing exhibit R/1 to the police. Mulkh Raj went on to depose that the writing exhibit R/1 was scribed by Raunak Ram. This Raunak Ram has not been produced, nor indeed any of the persons, who are shown to have witnessed it. Such thus being the circumstances with regard to this document, no exception can indeed be taken to the tribunal not relying upon it.