SHARDA DEVI Vs. BIRBAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, nohar dated 29. 2. 1996, dismissing theclaim petition in toto.

(2.) A perusal of the award shows that thereby 6 claim petitions were decided by a common judgment and all the claim petitions were dismissed. However, out of this judgment, the only one appeal is before me, arising out of the Claim Petition No. 3 of 1993.

(3.) THE necessary facts are that according to the claim petition, on the fateful day being 13. 8. 1992, the deceased Chimnaram was travelling in the bus No. 1864, which was overloaded, rather many passengers were travelling on the rooftop also. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the driver having lost control it went off the road towards the south side and rolled down twice or thrice, with the result that many passengers sustained injuries and 4 persons including this Chimnaram died. Regarding quantum of compensation it is claimed that the deceased was an experienced tractor driver and was earning Rs. 1,800 per month apart from daily allowances. He is claimed to be 30 years of age at the time of death and a total compensation of Rs. 22,59,000 has been claimed under various heads. It is pleaded in para 12 of the claim petition that the bus driver was not having any driving licence and the bus was not insured either. It was also being plied without any permit between Neolakhi and Nohar and was being illegally operated. The owner-defendant no. 2 submitted a reply denying the allegation of vehicle being driven negligently or at a fast speed, rather the factum of chimnaram travelling in the bus was also denied. It was pleaded that as a matter of fact Chimnaram boarded the bus without permission of the driver and conductor, without their knowledge and without obtaining ticket, on the rooftop. The bus was being driven carefully at a normal speed and it was only by way of an act of God that the right tube was burst, with the result, that bus went off the road and fell in the borrow pits, caused by the brick manufacturer, by removing earth. It was pleaded that the bus was carrying only passengers to the permissible capacity. The allegations regarding income, etc. were denied. Then in additional pleas it was pleaded, that it is the responsibility of the state to keep the road plain and transport worthy. Likewise, it is responsibility of mining Department to prevent creation of illegal pits on the roadside, and it was on account of indifferent attitude of the State and illegal excavation by the brickkiln owners, that on account of the pits on the roadside by act of God, the tyre burst and the bus could not be stopped and fell in the pits. Since all the claim petitions were consolidated, the evidence was recorded in claim Petition No. 91 of 1992.