H.R.T.C. Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals and counter appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of a single accident between the same parties and involve common questions of fact and law. The learned Counsel on either side have made their common factual and legal submissions. FAO (MVA) No. 105/92 and FAO (MVA) No. 106/92 have been filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation against the judgments and awards of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una whereunder the appellant-Corporation has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants of the deceased and injured in the accident. FAO (MVA) No. 124/92 and FAO (MVA) No. 130/92 have been filed by the claimants of the deceased and by the injured against the said awards to the extent of holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and also seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: One Chain Singh was driving scooter No. PBO-7664 on 19.4.1989 on UnaJaijo road and was to cross Pabowal Nainwa road. Two pillion riders namely Surjit Singh and Vikram Singh were also sitting on the scooter of Chain Singh. Bus No. HPG-1926 belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation and being driven by its driver Gurdial Singh was going from Pabowal side towards Nainwa. Both the vehicles had a collision at Pabowal junction in which Chain Singh and one pillion rider Surjit Singh suffered injuries and later on Chain Singh died as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident after reaching in the hospital. The scooter which was being driven by Chain Singh was stated to be owned by one Vinod Kumar who said to have sold it to Ram Lubhaya.

(3.) THE claim petitions were resisted and contested by the H.R.T.C. and its driver in their written statement. The said respondents denied that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent-driver and pleaded that the bus was standing when the scooter struck it. It was inter alia pleaded by the respondents that Chain Singh deceased was driving the scooter with two pillion riders rashly and negligently and dashed the scooter against the standing bus, as he could not control the scooter. Permanent disability to injured Surjit Singh, loss of income and medical expenses etc. have been disputed. The respondent driver of the bus also pleaded that at the time of the accident scooterist was under the influence of liquor. Ram Lubhaya respondent in his statement averred that he was not a driver or registered owner of the scooter and he was, therefore, not liable to pay any amount. He alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Other averments of the claim petitions were denied by him for want of knowledge.