HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. SURJO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these have arisen out of the same Accident, as such, have been taken up together. It may be noted that vide common award which is subject-matter of FAO No. 244 of 2001, two claim petitions were decided. One was by two daughters and husband of late Smt. Bandna. Other petition was filed by Kumari Neha for the injuries sustained by her. Separate awards have been passed in cases out of which FAO Nos. 86 of 2001 and 225 of 2001 have arisen. Brief reference to facts of each case necessary for disposal of these appeals is being made hereinafter.

(2.) AN important fact that needs to be noted at the very outset in these appeals is, that Accident having taken place was not even dispute at the time of hearing of these appeals, nor it was disputed during the course of proceedings before the learned Tribunal below. Bone of contention before the Tribunal below, as well as this Court, is whether the Accident was on Account of rash and negligent driving on the part of Mohinder Singh, driver of the ill-fated bus bearing registration No. HP-10-0324 or not.

(3.) ANOTHER fact that also needs a mention here, is that in his reply filed by the driver his specific stand was that the bus was not roadworthy as its brakes had been defective in the past also. Per him, he had brought this fact to the notice of the authorities. Still he was made to drive the bus. Case of driver is that a vehicle i.e., truck came from opposite side at a high speed. With a view to avert collision, he applied brakes of the bus which did not function. Resultantly the bus and truck collided, when the bus went off the road. His further stand was that the past history of the bus (which was revealed to him (driver) later on) showed that it was not mechanically fit and its brakes used to fail. It is a matter of record that repeated complaints regarding defective brakes of the bus were made and its repair was carried out for such failure.