HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. VINOD MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act challenges the award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, in claim Petition No. 2 of 1977 decided on 8-9-1981 as the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has a grievance against this award.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No. 5, Sh. Hari Har, was the driver of bus No. HPM-45. It was owned by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. On 17-11-1976 while going from Hamirpur to Nadaun, it hit the scooter HPK-1068 coming from Nadaun towards Hamirpur, driven by Abhilash Chander Mahajan, Junior Engineer, with his wife Smt. Vinod Mahajan on the pillion seat. The husband died while respondent No. 1 sustained as many as 17 injuries on various parts of her body. Smt. Vinod Mahajan remained under medical treatment in hospitals including Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chandigarh, for a period of more than two months. Smt. Vinod Mahajan, aged 30, was working as a teacher in a school and had three minor daughters to look after. The case of the claimants is that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. S. Therefore, they were entitled for compensation. The allegation was refuted by respondents and it was contended that Sh. Abhilash Chander Mahajan, the husband of the claimant Smt. Vinod Mahajan was driving the scooter carelessly and had only a learner's licence, so he did not know driving very well. Therefore, the claim was liable to be rejected.

(3.) SH . J.R. Thakur appearing for the appellant-corporation urges that in the whole case, there is only one eye witness, namely, Smt. Vinod Mahajan who being the claimant cannot be relied upon for the purpose of the claim based on negligence in this case. It is also contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that the deceased was driving the scooter with care and caution on correct side of the road and if there is any such evidence, the same is in the version of Smt. Vinod Mahajan and she being an interested witness, her version has to be examined with care and caution. It is contended further by Sh. J.R. Thakur that the claimants have failed to prove negligence or rashness on the part of respondent No. 5. Therefore, the failure to prove the same disentitles the claimants from claiming the compensation. Sh. J.R. Thakur has also a grievance against the award of Rs. 5,000/- as medical expenses in the absence of any receipt showing that such amount was actually spent by Smt. Vinod Mahajan on medical treatment.