Pritam Kaur and Others vs Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal has been filed by the widow and the two minor children against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 22.8.1988 vide which he had dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 5,00,000 in respect of the death of Ajit Singh who died on account of accident with the bus No. PJG 7351, owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by Nirmal Singh rashly and negligently.

The claim petition was contested by the respondents who pleaded that Ajit Singh had committed suicide by jumping from the window of the bus.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Nirmal Singh, respondent No. 2, was driving the bus rashly and negligently and Ajit Singh received the injuries in that accident and died on account of those injuries? OP claimants.

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and from whom? OP claimants.

(3) Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided against the claimants. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 600/- per month and taking the monthly dependency as Rs. 400/- applied a multiplier of 13 and the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 62,400/- as compensation. However, in view of the finding on issue No. 1 having been returned against the claimants, the claim petition was dismissed.

The case as set up by the learned counsel for the appellants is that deceased Ajit Singh who was resident of Jalandhar had boarded the bus No. PJG 7351 for Ludhiana from Jalandhar. When the bus had reached railway crossing near General Bus Stand, Ludhiana, the driver slowed down the speed of the bus and after crossing the railway level, accelerated the speed of the bus with a jerk as a result of which the window opened and Ajit Singh fell down and was run over under the rear tyre of the bus. He died instantaneously.

Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, the learned counsel for the claimants, had contended that Ajit Singh had died on account of rash and negligent driving of Nirmal Singh, respondent No. 2, which fact was duly proved by the witnesses. Learned counsel has read the statements of Jagtar Singh and Joginder Singh, PWs, the alleged witnesses to the accident.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, had contended that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on evidence and as such no interference in the matter is called for. Learned counsel argued that no negligence can be attributed to Nirmal Singh, driver.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have perused the trial court''s file.

In order to prove that driver of the bus was driving the bus No. PJG 7351 rashly and negligently, Jagtar Singh was examined as PW 8. He categorically stated that the bus driver had applied brakes all of a sudden on reaching the railway crossing as a result of which the front window opened and Ajit Singh fell down and was crushed under the rear wheel. The passengers inside the bus had raised alarm and it was only then the bus was stopped at a distance of 10 feet from the place where the driver had applied brakes.

PW Joginder Singh who is a retired Army Officer and is alleged witness to the accident had stated that he was going from his house to the canteen on a scooter on the date of accident at about 10.30 a.m. and when he reached the railway crossing, he noticed that the bus driver had applied brakes and then accelerated the speed and one passenger fell down and was crushed. Both the witnesses were cross-examined but nothing could be elicited which could favour the respondents.

They were not shown to be in any way interested in the claimants or inimical towards the respondents. The Tribunal simply rejected the statements of these witnesses from consideration on the plea that had they been present at the spot or had witnessed the accident, they would have reported the matter to the police. The other reason given is that there are variations in the pleadings of the claimants and the statements of the witnesses. The Tribunal had lost sight of the fact that the claimants were not aware of the death of Ajit Singh in the accident. The claimants had given an advertisement in the Daily Ajit dated 17.4.1987 where it was mentioned that anybody who gives intimation with respect to person who had been run over near Ludhiana railway crossing on 5.4.1987 should contact Amarjit Singh Kalra and both the witnesses have stated that they contacted the appellant after reading the newspaper. It is also admitted that body of the deceased was cremated by some social organisation. Another fact which goes against the respondents is that an F.I.R. was registered against the driver and the said F.I.R. has been proved by Gian Chand, constable of the Government Railway Police, Ludhiana, to have recorded under Sections 279/337, Indian Penal Code. Since nobody had any knowledge about the accident, the case remained untraced. But the perusal of F.I.R. would show that a case under Sections 279/337, Indian Penal Code, was recorded against the owner/driver of the bus.

The driver of the offending vehicle has stepped into the witness-box and no other witness has been produced to support the case that the bus was not being driven rashly and negligently. The other important aspect of the matter is that the conductor of the bus has not been examined by the driver to support his version. The stand of the respondents that Ajit Singh had committed suicide is not established from the evidence on record and the only inference that can be drawn is that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of Ajit Singh. As such the finding of the Tribunal recorded to the contrary is reversed.

The rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application as their facts are distinguishable.

In view of the discussion above, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 62,400/- as held by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with 12 per cent interest from the date of the claim petition.

The appeal is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.