HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. VINOD BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Himachal Road Transport Corporation which is the owner of the bus involved in the accident and driver of the bus are the appellants in this appeal. The accident took place on 6.4.1989. The respondent herein was driving the scooter with his friend on pillion. When the scooter reached near Knolls Wood, Chhota Shimla and it was going uphill, the bus driven by the appellant No. 2 hit the scooter throwing out the respondent about 10 15 feet away. The respondent became unconscious immediately and suffered multiple injuries whereas the pillion rider escaped unhurt. The respondent filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the bus was driven by the appellant No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, both the appellants were liable to pay the compensation. The respondent claimed a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ by way of compensation without specifying the various heads under which such amount was claimed. In the petition he has stated that he was working in Hitkari Potteries Private Limited, Parwanoo and was earning Rs. 2,800/ per mensem besides allowances, etc. His age is given as 34 years at the time of accident. It is further averred in the petition that even after about 6 months from the date of the accident, the respondent was not able to move about without crutches and his left arm had been deformed. According to the petition, respondent was on 50 per cent pay leave after the accident and his wife had resigned her job in order to look after the respondent. She was earning Rs. 500/ per mensem as salary. The respondent was admitted to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and his entire family had to be shifted to Shimla by incurring the expenditure of Rs. 5,000/ . The family of the respondent consists of his 79 years old father, his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son. The respondent also suffered loss, inasmuch as his wife intended to set up an industry at Kumarhatti in partnership with another person who has now backed out from the deal. The wife of the respondent had already spent a sum of Rs. 35,000/ on the project which has now been abandoned.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the appellants on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant No. 2 in driving the bus and the fault was entirely with the respondent who was driving the scooter. It was also contested by the appellants that the compensation claimed by the respondent was highly exaggerated and he did not suffer any loss as claimed by him.

(3.) THE appellants preferred this appeal and in C.M.P. No. 409 of 1993, this Court passed an order on 10.1.1994 directing release of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the respondent out of the amount deposited by the appellants subject to respondent's furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in the name of the Registrar in the same bank for a further period of two years.