H.R.T.C. Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the H.R.T.C. is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamsala in M.A.C.P. No. 44-G/99, decided on 29th August, 2001, whereby an award of Rs. 1,02,900 along with interest and costs has been passed against the appellant and in favour of the claimants.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that claimant Rajesh Kumar was travelling on the roof of bus No. HP-07-2884 belonging to the appellant. When he was travelling on the roof, he was hit by a branch of tree and damaged eye. He accordingly claimed compensation. The case set up by the claimant is that in fact it was the conductor of the bus who had asked him to travel on the roof. However, this fact is denied by the appellant and according to the appellant the conductor had not asked any person to travel on the roof of the bus. The learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded compensation.

(3.) IT is clear from the evidence that the claimant was travelling on the roof of the bus. The version of the claimant that he was forced to travel on the roof of the bus cannot be accepted. He is a grown-up man and could not have been forced to travel on the roof. His consent to travel on the roof of the bus is writ large. On the other hand the version of the appellant that they were not at all negligent also cannot be accepted. The driver and conductor cannot state that they were totally oblivious of the fact that the claimant was travelling on the roof of the bus. However, even if it is held that the conductor and the driver took no steps to prevent the deceased from climbing on to the roof of the bus, it cannot be said that there is no fault on the part of the claimant. The deceased was a grown-up man. He was not a child. He knew what was good for him. A grown-up person is expected to take care of himself. He is not expected to do such acts which are against law and which endanger his life or limb. The argument on behalf of the claimants is that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and in any event there is no evidence to show that the conductor stopped him from climbing on to the roof of the bus and as such there is no negligence on behalf of the deceased.