BISHAN DASS Vs. NEW PREM BUS SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS court proposes to dispose of these three appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 214, 215 and 216 of 1984] by a common judgment as these pertain to the same accident and also arisen out of the common judgment dated 20.8.1984 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division at Dharamshala. In the accident in question jeep No. HIL 4824 and bus No. HPK 1589 were involved. Bus No. HPK 1589 was owned by New Prem Bus Service, the respondent No. 1 and driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, at the time of accident. It was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 3. The jeep No. HIL 4824 was owned by one of the claimants, Bishan Dass and was being driven by Kishori Lal at the time of accident.

(2.) IN the accident Bishan Dass and his daughter Sharda Devi, claimants, received injuries whereas Sheela Devi, wife of Bishan Dass died on the spot. Bishan Dass filed claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 7 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as the compensation. Sharda Devi filed separate claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 10 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 80,000 as compensation. The legal representatives of deceased Sheela Devi, namely, Bishan Dass, her husband, Sharda Devi, her daughter and Bipin Kumar, her son, filed another claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 11 of 1982 claiming Rs. 50,000/ as compensation. As per the allegations, made in their claim petitions, on 18.10.1981 at about 12.30 p.m. the claimants along with the deceased Sheela Devi were travelling in jeep No. HIL 4824 from Kangra to Nagrota Bagwan and when it entered Pathankot Mandi Road after crossing Tanda Sanitarium, at a point near 53 miles, bus No. HPK 1589 being driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, came at tremendous speed from Nagrota Bagwan side for going to Pathankot and struck with the jeep with a great force when it had covered 3/4th of the turn and pushed it to some distance. According to the claimants, the bus driver could see from a distance of 100 yards that the jeep was coming on the road from Tanda for going to Nagrota Bagwan, therefore, the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus.

(3.) SO far respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has mainly pleaded that the claim of compensation of the claimants is excessive and on the point of negligence it has towed the line of defence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed, which were common in all the three claim petitions: