Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 605 (PNJ)

Palo v. Prem Singh

2003-04-28

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimants who are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal on account of the death of Parkash Ram in an accident. 2. The facts of the case are that Parkash Ram accompanied by Tarsem Lal and Harnam Dass was going from village Talwandi Kalan to Ladowal on 8.7.1984. When they reached near village Ladowal, Tarsem Lal and Harnam Dass wished good bye to Parkash Ram and left. Parkash Ram then went towards the petrol pump situated on the G.T. Road and while crossing the road, was run over and killed by bus No. PUX 6653 driven by Prem Singh (respondent No. 1) and owned by Punjab Roadways, Nawanshehr (respondent No. 2). In the claim petition filed by the claimants, it was claimed that the deceased was 28 years of age only at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month from agriculture and dairy farming. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Prem Singh, driver of the offending bus filed his written statement. He denied that the bus was involved in the accident and stated that the deceased was under the influence of intoxicants when he was going on the road on his bicycle when he had struck against a truck which was going ahead of the bus and had fallen down and on the request of the passengers, he had been taken to the hospital in his bus and that he had been roped in subsequently. Respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e. the owner of the bus in their written statement, stated that the deceased had approached the G.T. Road on his bicycle from the side of Ladowal and had lost control and struck against the front left side wheel of the bus. 4. The Tribunal in its award dated 23.7.1986 held that three versions have been put forward as to the manner in which the accident had taken place, one by claimants, the second by Prem Singh driver and the third by owner of the vehicle and it appeared that neither of the three versions are fully correct. The Tribunal determined the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 75% while negligence of the driver was held on 25 per cent. The Tribunal determined the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 75% while negligence of the driver was held on 25 per cent. The Tribunal, therefore, held the claimant entitled to 25 per cent of the awarded amount which came to Rs. 12,816/- out of the total assessed compensation of Rs. 51,264/-. 5. I have heard Mr. Sukant Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State of Punjab and have also gone through the evidence on record. I find that the stand taken by the claimant is correct. It is clear from the evidence that A.W.3-Tarsem Lal and A.W.4-Harnam Dass, who had witnessed the occurrence, had fully supported the claimants not only with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place but also on the quantum of compensation. The story put forward by the respondents, on the face of it, is not convincing. The plea of Prem Singh, driver of the vehicle that he had taken the deceased to the hospital in the bus on the request of the passengers and that subsequently he had been roped in is not acceptable. Likewise, the version of respondent Nos. 2 i.e. the Punjab Roadways, Nawanshehr through its General Manager that the deceased had approached the G.T. Road on his bicycle from the side of Ladowal and while he was crossing the road, had lost control of his bicycle and been run over by the bus is also not believable. The version of respondent No. 2 clearly contradicts the version of the driver. No credence can, therefore, be given to this version. It is not clear from the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 as to the source of this information that the accident had taken place in the manner pleaded by him. I, therefore, find on an appreciation of the evidence that the story put forward by the claimant and supported by Tarsem Lal and Harnam Dass was the correct one in the face of the contradictory stands taken by the driver and owner of the bus. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Prem Singh-respondent No. 1 only. Ipso facto, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal amounting to Rs. 51,264/- along with the interest shall be paid by the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Prem Singh-respondent No. 1 only. Ipso facto, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal amounting to Rs. 51,264/- along with the interest shall be paid by the respondents. The payment shall be made to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the claimants free of cost, under registered cover as they are not represented today. Appeal allowed.