H.R.T.C. Vs. LEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Kullu awarding a sum of Rs. 13,11,952/- to the claimants alongwith future rate of interest at the rate of 7-1/2% from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount before the Tribunal.

(2.) The petition was preferred by the dependents of the deceased late Amar Singh @ Amro whose age was established as 57 years on the evidence on record. The case of Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the petitioners was that Amar Singh was employed as Beldar in NHPC at Larji and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. Rs. 13,749/-. On 29.7.2004 when he was walking to his office, bus bearing No. HP- 63-0760 being driven from Nagwain side came at a fast speed, hit the petitioner and crushed him under the tyres. He was brought to District Hospital, Kullu, whereafter immediately referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. He died on way to Mandi. The case pleaded by the claimants was that accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.

(3.) First Information Report charging the driver for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC was also instituted against him. It was pleaded that respondent M/s Jayimdrab Rasikbai Bavaria, Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. was owner of the vehicle and the bus had been taken on lease by the appellant Himachal Road Transport Corporation by an agreement dated 6.8.2004. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition was contested by the HRTC as also the Regional Manager at Kullu. Driver Madho Singh and the owner were proceeded exparte before the Tribunal. In this appeal also, what I find is that both of them have been proceeded exparte. On the settled issues, with respect to the liability on the respondents, the Court, on the evidence of parties, concluded that evidence of PW3 Leela, who states that bus was being driven in rash and negligent, was corroborated by FIR Ext.P2 and this part of her testimony has remained unrebutted. The Court concluded that the accident was the result of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus.