Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 583 (JHR)

Sudha Vijay v. Divisional Manager, Bsrctc

2002-05-09

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.4.1997 passed by learned single Judge allowing the appeal in part being M.A. No. 56/87 (R) filed by claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated 15.6.87 passed by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in M.J.C. (Compensation) Case No. 67/81. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The deceased, who was the husband of the claimant-appellant was Welder in H.E.C., Ranchi. On the fateful day. i.e. 20.2.81 the deceased went to bus stand of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. Ranchi in the night at about 9.30 p.m. to get the bus for going to Patna. It was alleged that while the deceased was boarding the bus bearing Registration No. BHQ-3584, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus without any warning by blowing horn, as a result of which deceased fell down and was crushed under the wheels of the bus. The claim was contested by the owner of the bus namely, B.S.R.T.C. by filing written statement stating inter alia that the deceased himself was negligent and was responsible for his death. 3. The case of the Corporation was that the bus arrived at the bus stand from Tata for its onward journey to Patna. The deceased along with many other intending passengers rushed towards the bus for taking seat in the bus when the bus was yet to be stopped completely. The deceased wanted his forceful entry into the bus to take seat but he lost his balance and fell down as a result of which he was crushed under the wheels of the bus. According to the Corporation, the death of the deceased took place on account of his contributory negligence. The Tribunal besides other issues, framed the issue whether the deceased was negligent and careless in boarding the bus. While deciding the issues, the Tribunal considered the evidence of Ram Lal Bijay cousin of the deceased, who was examined as AW 3. He deposed in his evidence that he had accompanied Amar Chand Vijay (since deceased) to the Bihar Road Transport Depot. Ranchi on the relevant day and time. While deciding the issues, the Tribunal considered the evidence of Ram Lal Bijay cousin of the deceased, who was examined as AW 3. He deposed in his evidence that he had accompanied Amar Chand Vijay (since deceased) to the Bihar Road Transport Depot. Ranchi on the relevant day and time. When the Bus came from Tata, the deceased made attempt to Board the bus and as soon as he placed his foot on the foot board of the bus, the bus moved and he fell down from the bus and he was crushed under the wheels of the Bus. Relying on the said evidence, which in fact is a very relevant piece of evidence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased. The learned single Judge while hearing the appeal also reappreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence. We are, also of the view, that admittedly before the bus stopped in the bus stand, the deceased tried to board the bus which resulted in the said accident. The deceased was not supposed to board the bus while it did not stop in the depot. It appears that against the impugned Judgment, the Road Transport Corporation also tiled Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 363/97 (R), which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.4.1998. The finding with regard to contributory negligence has been upheld by a Division Bench in the LPA filed by the Corporation. In such circumstances as also in view of the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to take different view on the question of contributory negligence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that this appeal has been filed against that part of the judgment and award whereby half of the compensation amount was deducted on the ground of contributory negligence. According to the appellant, the amount compensation was enhanced without making any deduction. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel. It appears that the Tribunal enhanced the compensation from Rs. 89,000/- to Rs. 1,08,000/-. 4. We do not find any infirmity in the assessment of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned single Judge in favour of the claimant/appellant. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 5. It appears that the Tribunal enhanced the compensation from Rs. 89,000/- to Rs. 1,08,000/-. 4. We do not find any infirmity in the assessment of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned single Judge in favour of the claimant/appellant. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 5. Before parting with the judgment, we are informed by the appellant that till date compensation amount has not been paid by the Corporation. We direct the Corporation to pay entire compensation amount together with interest awarded, within a period of four weeks from today.