POHLO RAM Vs. SANTOKHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants, Santokhi Devi (widow), Ram Prakash (minor), Smt. Bahtu Devi (mother) and Shri Jai Ram (father), claimed compensation to the extent of rupees four lakhs for the death of Garja Ram, the only bread earner of the family, who died in an accident. The Tribunal, where the claim was tried, allowed a sum to the extent of Rs. 73,000.00 with interest at the rate of 4 per cent from the date of the order till date. Shri Pohlo Ram, who was the driver of the truck, owned by the Public Works Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has preferred this appeal against the award of the Tribunal, whereas no appeal has been moved by the State, Cross Objection No. 137 of 1983 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation as well as the interest.

(2.) The facts, briefly, are that the deceased Garja Ram, aged 28 years, was employed as a driver in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mandi. On 17-12-1981 he was travelling in bus No. HPS-4146. He got down from the bus at Delag Gala, from where he was to go, on foot, to his village. Truck No. HIM-9182, driven by Pohlo Ram, came from behind the bus and, while moving by the side of the bus, caused injuries to the deceased. The truck driver stopped the truck when alarm was raised by the passengers of the bus that the deceased had been run over by the truck. The deceased was given medical treatment at Ghumarwin, Bilaspur and Snowdown hospitals, but ultimately he died on 23-12-1981. The claimants say that the accident took place due to the gross negligence of the truck driver, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay damages to the claimants for the death of the deceased. The case of the respondents is that although the accident had taken place and the deceased sustained injuries, however, the same was not on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. They say that the deceased was himself responsible since he did not care to move cautiously while crossing the road after getting down from the bus. It was the deceased who did not listen to the horn blown by the driver of the truck being driven at a normal speed with care and caution. In these circumstances, the deceased could, at the last moment, avoid this accident in case he was careful. The driver has, in his separate reply, denied any responsibility for the accident and the compensation. He has thrown the whole burden on the deceased and has denied that he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Rather he says that the gradient of the road at that time was such that he was moving in second gear and before passing by the side of the bus, he not only blew horn but also used dipper while crossing the stationary bus with its lights on.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: -