Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 333 (PNJ)

Nikka Singh v. Jang Singh

2001-03-13

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This F.A.O. has been filed by Nikka Singh and has been directed against the award dated 11.11.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri which dismissed the claim petition of the appellant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Nikka Singh, the appellant, filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 on account of amputation of his leg and it was alleged by the appellant that on 18.9.1993 he was travelling in CTU bus bearing No. CHO 1C 5325 from Chandigarh to Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. When the said bus reached at Sadhaura Chowk, it was about 12 to 12.30 noon and the appellant got down from the front door of the bus which was being driven by respondent No. 1 Jang Singh. The respondent No. 1 in haste started driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner without caring that the appellant had partly stood on the ground and in that process the left foot of the appellant was run over by the wheel of the bus and the appellant suffered amputation of left leg. According to the appellant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is further alleged by the appellant that he was aged 46 years at the time of accident and was working as press operator in Haryana Small Industries Export Corporation, Chandigarh and was getting Rs. 3,798 per month as salary. He was also earning Rs. 2,000 per month from agriculture. He spent Rs. 25,000 on his treatment. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte. The claim petition was only contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to these respondents the appellant had suffered injuries on account of his own negligence and there was no fault on the part of respondent No. 1 who was on duty on the bus in question on 18.9.93. The respondents further alleged that the appellant himself made statement before the police which was incorporated in DDR No. 40 dated 11.10.1993 in Police Station, Sadhaura. The respondents further alleged that the appellant himself made statement before the police which was incorporated in DDR No. 40 dated 11.10.1993 in Police Station, Sadhaura. According to the contesting respondents, the true facts are that on the date of accident respondent No. 1 was on duty on the above said bus which was on its way from Chandigarh to Jagadhri. At Sadhaura bus stand one passenger, i.e., the appellant had alighted from the bus. He was standing at the stop and when the bus started for onward journey the foot of the appellant slipped as a result of which he received the injuries. There was no fault on the part of respondent No. 1. The bus was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant got his statement recorded vide DDR No. 40 dated 11.10.1993 that nobody was at fault for the injuries suffered by him. Similarly, he also made a statement before the police in police post, PGI, Chandigarh. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for the disposal of the claim petition: "(1) Whether the accident in question and the resultant injuries suffered by the claimant took place due to rash and negligent driving of CTU bus No. CHO 1C 5325 by Jang Singh respondent? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief." 5. In support of his case the appellant appeared as PW 1 and also examined Des Raj, PW 2 and Dr. Vikas Mehra, PW 3. On behalf of the respondents Jang Singh appeared as RW 1 and HC Pawan Kumar as RW 2. The learned Tribunal on the conclusion of proceedings decided issue No. 1, against the appellant. No finding was given by the Tribunal on issue No. 2. In view of the finding returned under issue No. 1, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 11.11.1995, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. I have heard Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for appellant, I have also been able to go through the records of this case. In my opinion, the Tribunal was not right in deciding issue No. 1 against the appellant. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for appellant, I have also been able to go through the records of this case. In my opinion, the Tribunal was not right in deciding issue No. 1 against the appellant. Firstly, respondent No. 1 did not file any written statement and he was proceeded ex parte. Of course, he appeared as RW 1, but in the absence of his written statement not much reliance can be placed on his statement. The written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in these circumstances, will only be a derived information from respondent No. 1. Be that as it may, now let us examine the evidence afresh to ensure whether there was negligence on the part of Jang Singh, respondent No. 1, or not. It has been categorically stated that Nikka Singh, who is none else but an injured witness that when he was in the process of getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus all of a sudden started the bus without caring for the fact that he was still to get down from the bus. His left foot was crushed under the front wheel of the bus as he fell down. It was also stated on oath by Nikka Singh that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The statement of Nikka Singh has been corroborated by Des Raj, PW 2, who also stated that the appellant was getting down from the bus from front door. He had put his left leg on the road while the right leg was on the footsteps of the bus. As soon as Nikka Singh put his left leg on the ground, the driver of the bus started the bus abruptly. The left foot of Nikka Singh came underneath the front wheel of the bus and was crushed. Thus the statement of Nikka Singh, which has been corroborated by Des Raj, PW 2 leaves no manner of doubt that respondent No. 1 did not comply with the driving instructions. The driver of the bus is duty-bound to ensure that all the passengers who intended to board into the bus had occupied their seats. After the passengers occupied their seats, then it becomes the duty of the driver to move the bus. The driver of the bus is duty-bound to ensure that all the passengers who intended to board into the bus had occupied their seats. After the passengers occupied their seats, then it becomes the duty of the driver to move the bus. But unfortunately in this country the drivers, especially who are in charge of heavy vehicles, do not bother about these necessary instructions. Similarly, the drivers of the buses are duty- bound to ensure that all the passengers have alighted from the bus comfortably and that they had maintained their balance when they alighted from the bus while standing on the road. In the present case, it appears that respondent No. 1 did not bother to ensure that Nikka Singh appellant has comfortably alighted on the road. He started the bus without noticing the presence of Nikka Singh. The act on the part of the respondent No. 1 has to be held as negligent. The evidence led by the appellant has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, I reverse the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1. 8. Since the Tribunal has not given its finding on issue No. 2, therefore, I allow this appeal, set aside the award and remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to give specific finding on issue No. 2 within six months from the receipt of the copy of this order. Records of the Tribunal be sent immediately through a special messenger. It is also clarified that during the pendency of this appeal Nikka Singh has expired and this appeal is being prosecuted by his LRs, who are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri on 3.4.2001.