KRISHNA KAPOOR Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals, preferred by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') and by the claimants, along with cross objections, are the result of a motor accident which took place on 26th July, 1980, in between 5.00 and 5.30 a.m. near railway crossing between Jabli and Dharampur on Kalka Shimla National Highway. The bus owned by the Corporation with No. HPK 1464 was on night service coming from Dharamshala to Shimla. It started from Dharamshala at about 7.00 in the evening on 25th July, 1980. This bus was of a long route and, accordingly, two drivers used to operate it. One Hukam Chand, driver, drove the bus upto Ropar. However, according to the claimants, he brought the bus upto Kiratpur and handed it over to Ramesh Kumar, the second driver. The bus when reached near the place of accident it rolled down out of the road resulting in causing fatal injuries and other injuries to various occupants of the bus. This accident has been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of Ramesh Kumar, driver, who also lost his life in the said accident. Various claim petitions by the legal representatives of the deceased and by injured persons were submitted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan, in whose jurisdiction the said accident took place.

(2.) THE Corporation, an autonomous body, was owning the bus. All the claim petitions have been contested. In so far as the death and injuries caused to the various occupants of the bus are concerned the same were not denied by the Corporation. However, its main defence, as pleaded, has been that the bus was being plied properly by the driver and no negligence was there on the part of the driver of the bus concerned. It was also pleaded that the driver, Ramesh Kumar, had taken rest prior to his taking over as driver from Hukam Chand who drove the bus upto Ropar. According to the Corporation, the accident took place due to sudden failure of the headlights of the bus and consequently the driver could not know in time that the vehicle had gone off the road. It was also pleaded that it was dark and foggy and absence of parapet at the point of accident further contributed to the accident. The negligence on the part of the driver has been denied and, according to the Corporation, the accident was the result of vis major.

(3.) THE aforesaid appeals and cross objections are being dealt with in the same judgment on the sole ground that the original claim petitions have arisen out of the same accident with almost similar pleadings pertaining to the rash and negligent driving of the driver being the sole cause of the accident. Not only that, there are some common questions of law and facts involved in all these cases which also warrant a common judgment dealing with these aspects of the matter.