KRISHNA DEVI Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this appeal the claimants claim enhancement of compensation and also challenge the findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident in question was due to the contributory rash and negligent driving of the deceased and driver of Bus No. HR -03PA - 0107.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that claimants Krishna Devi and Mela Ram are the parents of the late Shri Atma Ram. It is not disputed that Atma Ram was employed as a driver of Mohindra vehicle No. HP -12 -8586 by Respondent No. 6, Zamila. Admitted facts are that on 5.9.2002 a head on collision took place between the vehicle driven by deceased Atma Ram and Bus No. HR -03PA -0107 which was coming from Baddi side. In the claim petition it was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal held that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/ - per month, the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,000/ - per month and by applying the multiplier of 10 assessed loss of income at Rs. 2,40,000/ - + interest and awarded Rs. 10,000/ - as conventional damages. Thus total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ - was awarded. Since the deceased was held responsible for the accident award was passed for Rs. 1,25,000/ - only.

(3.) AS far as negligence is concerned, the claimants only examined PW -2 Mohammad Alam, who states that he was sitting in the bus in question. According to this witness when the bus was overtaking a truck, which was at a high speed from the opposite side the jeep being driven by the deceased came and the bus hit against the jeep. On the other hand RW -1 Gurmit Singh, who is the driver of the bus appeared as his own witness. According to him he had dropped a passenger at Khera and had just restarted the bus and had hardly travelled a short distance when the vehicle being driven by the deceased came on a high speed from the opposite side and hit the bus. The only suggestion put to this witness in cross -examination on behalf of the claimants is that there were PWD labourers working on the left side of the road and in order to rescue the PWD labourers he struck against the jeep. This is the only ocular evidence led in this regard. The only other document relied upon is the F.I.R. Ext.PW -3/A, which has been proved by the Plaintiffs themselves and in this F.I.R. it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. The stand of the claimants with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred is not clear itself. Whereas the eye witness states that the accident occurred when the bus driver was overtaking a truck on a high speed when the bus driver himself stepped into the witness box no such suggestion was put to him and the only suggestion put to him was that he tried to avoid hitting labourers and then moved to the wrong side. Even if this suggestion is accepted to be correct it is apparent that the driver either had to hit the labourers or the vehicle in question. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to negligence cannot be faulted with and the same are upheld.