HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. PUNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eleven appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 160 to 169 of 1983 and No. 1 of 1986] and nine Cross-objections (Nos. 27 to 33 of 1984, 286 of 1983 and 139 of 1986) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of a common award (except No. 1 of 1986) as well as common accident. The appellant in all the appeals is the Himachal Road Transport Corporation who owned bus No. HPS 7697 which unfortunately met with an accident. The respondents, except the respondents in F.A.O. Nos. 167 of 1983,168 of 1983 and 1 of 1986, are the legal heirs of those who died in the accident. The respondents in F.A.O. Nos. 167 of 1983,168 of 1983 and 1 of 1986 have themselves suffered injuries in the accident. Cross-objections have also been filed in all the appeals except in F.A.O. Nos. 161 of 1983 and 169 of 1983.

(2.) ON 28th February, 1981, at 8.15 a.m., the ill-fated bus No. HPS 7697 stalled its journey from Kotgarh to Rampur. Its driver was Prem Singha and conductor was Sanjiv Kumar. Another person, namely, Chet Ram, was also deputed on this bus as conductor under training. When it reached a place Nirath, it developed some snag and could not proceed further. The conductor, Sanjiv Kumar, brought a mechanic from Rampur, who could by about 4.00 p.m. remove the snag by conducting the necessary repairs. Thereafter, as no time was left to continue further journey to Rampur, it was decided to bring back the bus to Kotgarh from Nirath. The bus had hardly covered a distance of 14 kilometres when at a place known as Bhuti Mor it rolled down the road for a distance of about 1,000-1,200 feet while negotiating a curve. As a result of the accident, a number of passengers travelling in the bus suffered injuries and eighteen out of them lost their lives. The driver, Prem Singha and the conductor under training, Chet Ram, also died in the accident.

(3.) ON preponderance of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rejected the defence of the H.R.T.C. and has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. These findings have been challenged by the H.R.T.C. in its appeals under consideration. The quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents is also disputed by both the parties. The grievance of the appellant, the H.R.T.C., is that it is on the higher side whereas the respondents-claimants have prayed for its enhancement by filing cross-objections.