Suresh Chopra vs Punjab Roadways and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The Punjab Roadways bus PUA 9349 was on its way to Amritsar from Jandiala when it hit into a stationary truck from behind. As a result of the impact between these two vehicles, the claimant Suresh Chopra, who was travelling in the bus sustained injuries. This accident had occurred on August 14, 1973 at about 8.15 p.m.

The Tribunal negatived the claimant''s claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by him, holding that he had failed to prove that the bus driver was to blame for this accident.

There is no dispute in this case that the bus had indeed hit into a stationary truck. Kundan Singh the bus driver, when he appeared in the witness box as RW 1 deposed that, he had not seen this truck on account of the headlights of a truck coming from the opposite direction. According to the evidence led by the claimant this stationary truck was standing on the kacha portion on the left side of the road when the bus hit into it. The Respondents, on the other hand, had tried to show that the truck was not wholly on the kacha portion, but it was partly on the kacha and partly on the metalled portion of the road. How the stationary truck was parked is not, however, a matter of any material consequence as the main point that arises here is, did the bus driver observe the duty of care resting upon him on being blinded by the headlights of the on-coming vehicle from the opposite direction? He deposed that he applied the brakes when he saw the standing truck, but, in a situation like the one, as has emerged in this case, it was clearly incumbent upon the bus driver to have stopped the bus there and then, if his visibility was for any reason impaired or obstructed. In other words, if on account of the headlights of the truck coming from the opposite direction he was not in a position to see the road ahead, considerations of care and caution should have rendered it imperative for him to have stopped and if he did not do so, the blinding effect of the headlights cannot absolve him from the charge of negligence inherent in his bus striking against a stationary truck in this manner. On the face of it, therefore, negligence of the bus driver is writ large in this case.

It has also come in evidence that the bus was being driven at a fast speed at the time of the impact. Indicative of this is the fact that the stationary truck was pushed to some distance on account of the impact and at the same time a number of passengers in the bus received injuries which were serious injuries too in some cases.

The Respondents had no doubt examined PW 2 Dalbir Singh and RW 3 Jagdish Chander, who claimed to be passengers in the bus to depose that the bus was being driven at a slow speed, but it is pertinent to note that these two witnesses came forth to depose to this effect for the first time in court. No statement of their''s was recorded by the police and neither of them suffered any injuries in this accident, nor could they explain how other passengers received injuries if the bus was indeed going at a slow speed. It also deserves note that Kundan Singh was a person known to the bus driver for over four years prior to this accident. Turning to RW 4, Kirpal Singh, the bus conductor, it will be seen that he admitted that some of the passengers had received injuries in this accident, but he went on to say that these injuries were not serious. This is belied by the fact that atleast one of the injured passengers died besides others who received serious injuries.

Seen in the totality of the circumstances of this case, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the blame for the accident lay wholly upon the rash and negligent driving of Kundan Singh, the driver of the bus.

No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the issue relating to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. A specific issue to this effect had been framed and evidence too had been led thereon by the parties. In such a situation, it was clearly just and appropriate that a finding should also have been given on this issue regardless of the finding on the question of negligence. Tribunals dealing with such cases should, therefore, record their findings on all the issues framed on which evidence has been led whether or not the finding on one or more of such issues may appear to be redundant in view of the findings recorded on the other issues. In the present case though evidence on the issues of compensation had been led by the parties, counsel for the claimant was at pains to stress that with regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant in this accident, further evidence would be necessary. In this view of the matter this case is accordingly remitted to the Tribunal for decision on the issue of quantum of compensation payable to the claimant after affording the parties due opportunity of adducing such further evidence as they may wish to lead. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on April 18,1984.

This appeal is consequently accepted with costs, which shall be costs in these proceedings. (Counsel fee Rs. 300/-).