LAWS(P&H)-1999-9-80

RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On September 22, 1999
RAJ KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 1079, 1077 and 1080 of 1989 which have been filed by S/Shri Raj Kumar, Jatinder Kumar and Bhagwan Dass respectively for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them through award dated 16.5.1989 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, in the separate claim petitions filed by them.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts which lead to the filing of the claim petitions are that on 19.1.198.8 Bus No. HYR 9327 belonging to the Haryana Roadways had left Rohtak for Jind. The claimants with many other passengers were travelling therein. Kanwar Singh, respondent No. 3 was driving the bus at high speed and at about 7.45 p.m. when it reached near its destination and was near the Gohana bye-pass road, it started moving in a zig zag manner and ultimately dashed into a tree on the side of the road. Due to rash and negligent manner in which the bus was being driven, the passengers including the claimants received injuries on account of which three separate claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal in which Raj Kumar claimed Rs. 2 lakhs, Jatinder Kumar asked for Rs. 1.00 lakh and Bhagwan Dass prayed that he be given Rs. 5.06 lakhs.

(3.) In the written reply the respondents denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent-3. It was pleaded that the bus was being driven at normal speed with full care. There was a culvert on the road near the place of accident. When the bus reached near this place, it took a jerk and as a result, thereof, the main leaf and second leaf of the bus on the driver's side were broken with the result the bus dragged towards right side. The driver tried his best to control the bus but it struck against a tree which was just on the right side of the road. So, the accident was purely a matter of chance. It was on this account that no FIR was even lodged in the case against the driver as the accident had taken place on account of a mechanical defect which was beyond the control of the driver.