BHUPINDER SINGH DHILLON Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accident took place involving Truck No. PUC 5425 and Truck No. PUP 1809. Manjit Singh was driver of Truck No. PUC 5425. He died in the accident. Mit Kaur, mother of Manjit Singh deceased, filed one claim application claiming a sum of Rs. 33,000/- as compensation on account of the death of her son Manjit Singh. Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, owner of Truck No. PUP 1809, filed the other claim application claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on account of loss of business and damages to the truck. Both these claim applications were tried together but evidence was recorded in one case. Both the claim applications were dismissed holding that accident, which took place, was not on account of rashness or negligence on the part of drivers of the two trucks. Hence two appeals.

(2.) IN order to decide as to which of the drivers of the trucks was responsible for causing the accident, a reference may be made to the photographs depicting the two trucks involved in the accident as existing on the spot as well as the plan prepared on scale showing the spot. The photographs are Exhibits A-18, A-19 and A-19 (duplicate mark). A reference is made to a photograph Exhibit A-19, which shows clearly the two trucks as well as the road. The plan prepared on scale is Exhibit A-24. This shows the entire width of the G.T. Road as well as beams (kacha portion of the road). This plan does not seem to have been correctly prepared, as the diversion has not been shown on this plan where the accident had taken place. This diversion of the road is clearly shown in the photograph, Exhibit A-19 (page 84 of the record). Before reference be made to the oral evidence produced in the case, it may be stated that Truck No. PUP 1809 bad crossed the bridge and was to enter the diversion which is shown in the photograph, Exhibit A-19, whereas Truck No. PUC 5425 came from the diversion and was to enter the main road going towards the bridge. P.W. 1 is Bhupinder Singh (claimant in one of the cases). He was in his own Truck No. PUP 1809, which was driven by Gopal Singh. The truck was driven at a speed of 25/30 Kms. per hour and was on the left side of the road. After crossing the bridge on Bhamarsi, he had noticed a truck coming from the opposite side (Truck No. PUC 5425) driven by Manjit Singh. The speed of that truck was 70/80 Kms. per hour. Coal was loaded in that truck. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Manjit Singh. The said driver severed the vehicle on the left side of the road. His truck was totally damaged. Gurpal Singh and Harbhajan Singh suffered injuries. On the opposite side, Manjit Singh also received injuries. He lodged the report, Exhibit P. 1 with the police. He further stated that the opposite party also lodged the report, copy Exhibit P. 2. Similar statement was made by P.W. 2 Gurpal Singh regarding the manner of the accident, P.W. 3 is Sukhdev Singh Constable who made entries in the daily register, copy Exhibit P. 2. On the other hand, R.W. 1 Baldev Singh, R.W. 2 Gurdev Singh, R.W. 4 Dalip Singh and RW 5 Gian Singh deposed about the manner of the accident. Baldev Singh was driving his own truck, which was following Truck No. PUC 5425. The straight road was closed on account of repairs and the diversion was in use. The speed of Truck No. PUC 5425 was stated to be 20 kms. Per hour. The driver of that truck was to take a turn towards the diversion. Manjit Singh was driver of that truck who died due to the accident. The other truck No. PUP 1809 came from the side of village Attarsi. The truck was being driven at a very high speed. The truck hit the right front of truck No. PUC 5425. Gurdev Singh was driving Truck No. PUV 9715 which truck was following Truck No. PUC 5425 driven by Manjit Singh. He noticed Truck No. PUP 1809 coming from the link road of village Attarsi. Near the diversion, the driver took turn and the said truck hit right front of Truck No. PUC 5425. Similar statements were made by Dalip Singh R.W. 4 and Gian Singh R.W. 5 who purported to be present near the place of the occurrence. If their evidence is read with the help of photograph, Exhibit A-19, as already noticed above, no manner of doubt is left that it was Truck No. PUC 5425, which was driven by Manjit Singh, which went towards the wrong side and hit against Truck No. PUP 1809, which was on its correct side. The Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion on a fact, which was not pleaded by either party except the Insurance Company that the accident took place on account of bursting of tyre of Truck No. PUC 5425. Bhupinder Singh pleaded that after the impact tyre of Truck No. PUC 5425 got busted. The Tribunal relied upon Exhibit P. 2 in coming to the conclusion that accident took place because of bursting of tyre of Truck No. PUC 5425. Some of the witnesses produced by the parties deposed about bursting of tyre of Truck No. 5425 resulting in causing of the accident. Truck No. PUC 5425 which was coming out of diversion was to enter the main road and was required to remain on its left band side of the road. Since it was not done, the said truck hit the other truck coming from the opposite direction just at the point of turning of the diversion. Thus, it is a case where the accident took place due to entire negligence of Manjit Singh who was driving Truck No. PUC 5425.

(3.) BHUPINDER Singh Dhillon, who is owner of Truck No. PUP 1809, would be entitled to compensation for the damages caused to his truck which was on account of negligent driving by Manjit Singh of Truck No. PUC 5425. Motor Accident claims Tribunal gave a finding that be would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 53,000/- on that account. This finding is not challenged in this appeal and is, therefore, affirmed.