Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Gita Devi

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 3.1.1995, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, in M.A.C. Petition No. 12-S/2 of 93 of 1992.

By means of impugned award, a sum of Rs. 60,000 has been awarded to the respondent. This is inclusive of amount, if any, deposited or paid under ''no fault liability''. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 5.3.1992 has also been allowed on the compensation.

Admitted facts of this case are that the respondent was travelling on the fateful date, i.e., 19.9.1991, in the bus of the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. HIS 1720. This bus was on its way from Shimla to Tatta Pani. The appellant had boarded the same at village Dargi on her way to her native village Shamlog, in Tehsil Suni of Shimla District. This bus met with an accident at Mandri and as a consequence of it, Hardayal driver of the ill-fated bus and number of other passengers died at the spot. Respondent being a passenger in the bus along with others, also sustained injuries in her spine, fracture in her left leg and a number of other injuries.

Respondent filed petition for grant of compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant, on the plea that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver of the bus. Having received multiple injuries she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Dhami after accident. From there, she was removed to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. From 19.9.1991 to 29.9.1991, she remained as an indoor patient. Thereafter according to the respondent, she was put under plaster for one and a half months. Her further case was that till the date of filing of the claim petition, she was under treatment. She being a household lady and her husband being in Government service, it was she who used to look after the agricultural pursuits and thus her contribution to the family for all these services was Rs. 2,000 per month. In this background, compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was claimed.

Appellant when put to notice, before the Tribunal below, while admitting the accident denied that it was because of rash and negligent driving of the driver. Further case of the appellant was that the petitioner normally stays at Shimla with her husband and other family members. Respondent having been paid Rs. 1,000 as interim relief was set up as a defence for her being not entitled to any further compensation. Accident having been caused due to some mechanical defect and thus bus having gone out of control was set up as a defence.

Learned Tribunal after framing the following issues has passed the impugned award:

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. HIS 1720, as alleged?...OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 supra, is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled? ...OPP

(3) Relief.

Mr. Chandel, learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned award is highly excessive and unjust. As according to him, while assessing the compensation Tribunal has to work out ''just compensation''. It does not have to be either too excessive or ridiculously low. According to him, since respondent had fully recovered after the accident with the passage of time, the compensation assessed is highly arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, therefore, while allowing this appeal, it is liable to be substantially reduced.

Mr. Chandel also submitted that there is no legally acceptable evidence of the accident being the outcome of the negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver. He has prayed for allowing this appeal.

Both these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Verma learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that things speak themselves and the impugned award in fact is on lower side, which calls for no interference in this appeal. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

When a reference is made to the evidence produced by the parties before the Tribunal below, factum of accident is clearly established which is even otherwise admitted.

Respondent has appeared as PW 1. She has given the details of the accident as also the suffering she had undergone. Nothing has been extracted in her cross-examination so as to dislodge her, particularly regarding the state of her health and injuries. Her disability has been described as permanent to the extent of 25 per cent. Her having sustained injuries in spine and fracture of left leg is clearly established. As per disability certificate, her permanent disability is 25 per cent in relation to both lower limbs. Here age of the respondent assumes significance. It is 22 years when she stepped into the witness-box. In these circumstances, compensation assessed at Rs. 60,000 with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of the filing of the petition cannot be said either excessive or on higher side.

Respondent will have to live with her disability to vital parts of her body throughout her life. It is likely to affect her personal life also. Looking to the evidence of the respondent as well as PW 2, it is clearly made out that the respondent was carrying on agricultural pursuits of holding of 20/25 bighas of land owned by her husband. It has also come in her statement as PW 1 that when her statement was recorded, her husband was posted at Kullu. Having remained as an indoor patient for ten days, thereafter under plaster for one and a half months, are other factors which can be made basis for upholding the award. In these circumstances, the impugned award deserves to be upheld.

So far plea of accident being not the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver is concerned, it has been raised simply to be rejected for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

Driver of the bus had died. So there was no question of his being produced. What happened to the conductor of the bus, learned senior counsel for the appellant was not in a position to tell the court. If the bus was being driven with due care and caution by the driver, some evidence could be produced on record of the passenger(s) who was travelling in the ill-fated bus. There is no such evidence produced. So far plea of sudden mechanical failure set up as a ground to allow this appeal is concerned, this also cannot be upheld. Because in order to succeed on this plea, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have produced the maintenance record of the bus in question and then by establishing that all possible and due care was taken in carrying out timely repairs of the bus and everything that was patently possible, its due care had been undertaken by appellant. There is no such evidence. As such the plea of accident being the result of sudden mechanical failure has been raised simply to be rejected.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Amount lying in deposit with up-to-date interest, if invested, be released in favour of the respondent-claimant. Registry is directed to remit the amount in question to the respondent-claimant by transmitting the same in her savings bank account number, whereof Mr. Verma submitted, will be furnished, if not already on record. Costs on the parties.