Gulab Kaur and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

G.R. Majitbia, J.—This appeal is directed agaiast the award of Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ambala.

The facts:

The claimants are the parents of deceased Palwinder Singh alias Balwinder Singh. During the pendency of the appeal, the father of the deceased died and his name was struck out from the array of the parties. The mother is the sole surviving appellant. Palwinder Singh was aged 18 years and a student of 10th Class on the date of the accident. He was run over by bus bearing registration No. HYK 843 belonging to Haryana Roadways. It was being driven rashly and negligently and as a result thereof the deceased who was paddling a cycle was hit and run over by the rear wheel of the bus.

The respondents denied the allegations made in the petition.

The Tribunal on evidence found that the accident took place partly as a result of the negligence of the driver of the bus and partly due 1o the negligence of the deceased.

The Tribunal was in error in recording this finding the occurrence was witnessed by PW3 Tek Chand. He deposed that the deceased came from the model town side and wanted to cross the Main road. He looked towards Ambala Cant side. The bus was coming at a speed of 60-70 kilometers per hour and did not try to save the cyclist who was run over by the rear wheel of the vehicle. The conductor was sitting on the bonnet of the bus talking to the driver. The witness lodged the FIR Ex. A2 promptly.

Ashok Kumar driver respondent No. 3 appeared as RW1 at the trial and stated that the deceased came to the Main road from the side of the link road on a cycle at a fast speed. He was driving the bus at a speed of 30-35 kilometers per hour. He tried to save the cyclyist and he took the vehicle on the right side. Since the cyclist was driving the cycle at a fast speed, he was run over by the rear wheel of the bus.

The version given by the driver cannot be accepted in its totality. He admits the occurrence. The dispute is how it occurred. The evidence of PW3 Tek Chand has a ring of truth. His presence at the spot is beyond dispute for the reason that he lodged the FIR immediately after the occurrence. His statement receives corroboration from the FIR. The occurrence appears to have taken place in the manner narrated by PW3 and not as stated by RW1. If the statement of PW3 is accepted at correct then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the occurrence took place due to the rash and negligent driving of bus driver Ashok Kumar respondent No. 3. He was in employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are liable vicariously for the act of their employees. The finding of the Tribunal to the extent to which he has held that the accident took place partly due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and partly due to the negligence of the deceased is set aside and it is held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.

On the quantum of compensation, I do not find any error in the assessment made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 38,400/- by way of compensation. However, be reduced the amount of compensation by 1/3rd for the reasons that the deceased was equally negligent and contributed in the accident. This 1/3rd cut cannot be imposed for the reasons given above. Resultantly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 38,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as ordered by the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.