RAJ KUMAR Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimant's first appeal directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdas-pur, whereby claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000 against the respondents jointly and severally and he has also been held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till actual realisation.

(2.) According to the claimant, namely, Raj Kumar, he was sitting on the pillion of the scooter No. PCW 1141 which was being driven by Mohinder Pal. They were going to village Taragarh from Pathankot. At about 3.30 p.m. when they crossed Kath Bridge and reached Tank Ghowk behind Jalandhar roadside, bus bearing registration No. PJG 7389 of Pepsu Road Transport, Faridkot Depot, being driven by Swaran Singh, respondent No. 1 came at a very high speed from Jalandhar Road. The driver took the wrong turn towards Pathankot roadside thereby violating the traffic rules. The driver of the bus did not give any indication for taking turn and hit the bus against the scooter. According to the claimant, accident took place due to rash and reckless driving of bus by Swaran Singh, respondent. Injured claimant was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot then shifted to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 4.5.1988, and was discharged from the said hospital on 1.6.1988. As a result of accident, claimant suffered 85 per cent disability. Claimant lodged a claim for Rs. 7,51,835.25. The claimant alleged that he was partner of firm M/s. Joginder Pal Gupta, Sujanpur, a private contractor firm. The claimant possessed a sound physique and used to work round the clock, but as a result of accident, his left leg above the knee was amputated and thus, claimant has become permanently disabled. The amount claimed was towards treatment, diet and transport and pecuniary loss.

(3.) Claim was contested by the respondents. Two sets of written statement were filed; one by the driver and the second one by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1, driver, in his written statement denied his involvement in the accident. He alleged that claimant and two other pillion riders were dead drunk and they were already lying in an injured condition near Kath Bridge crossing when the bus reached there. He alleged that being a good citizen, he picked up the claimant with the help of some passengers and the claimant was removed to Civil Hospital, Pathankot. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that there was a sharp curve for going to Pathankot near Kath Bridge. The driver of the bus slowed down the speed of the bus, but driver of the motor cycle was dead drunk and so were the pillion riders and hit the motor cycle on the rear bumper of the bus and suffered injuries. They denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. The Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on 3.5.1988 as a result of accident with bus No. PJG 7389? OPA (2) Whether the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. PJG 7389 by respondent No. 1? OPA (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA (4) Relief.