LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-10

MADHU SEHGAL Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT

Decided On May 07, 1997
MADHU SEHGAL Appellant
V/S
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by Mr. R.L. Sharma, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan & Sirmaur Districts at Solan. By means of impugned award in Case No. 8-S/2 of 1985 dated 30.6.1986, claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for grant of compensation has been rejected.

(2.) IN order to properly appreciate the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties before us, it is necessary to refer to a few facts material for determination of the present appeal.

(3.) IN respect of their case, Madhu Sehgal, appellant No. 1, appealed as her own witness and gave the age of the deceased to be 30 years as well as his income at Rs. 40-50 per day. She also stated that her husband was in good health. Deceased was stated to be giving Rs. 400 to Rs. 500/- to his mother after one month or so. Because of the death of her husband, it had become difficult for appellant No. 1 to give good education to her children. All the appellants were stated to be dependent upon the deceased. In cross-examination, conducted on behalf of the respondents, she denied the suggestion that his daily income was Rs. 51- to Rs. 10/- per day or it was not Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day. Kamaljeet Singh, PW 2, and another person who was driving on a separate motor cycle along with one Amrit Paul, has categorically stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of bus No. HIU 165. According to the PW, the bus was on the descent, whereas the deceased as well as the other witness along with a pillion rider were on the ascent. Bus came from the wrong side at a high speed and hit the motor cycle of Narinder Pal Sehgal, resulting in his falling down on the road and he sustained injuries. No cross-examination was directed on this aspect of the case stated by the appellant No. 1, whereas she denied the suggestion regarding the bus coming on its extreme left or that the deceased having taken his motor cycle on the wrong side, resulting in the accident in question.