Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 744 (PNJ)

Sheela Devi v. State of Punjab

2003-05-19

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - This is an unfortunate case. Bhagwan Dass was killed while travelling in bus bearing No. PUR-8192 being driven by Amar Singh, respondent No. 3 and belonging to the Punjab Roadways in an accident which had happened on 18.12.1982. The claimants are his widow, his three adult daughters and five minor children, making nine claimants in all. The claim for compensation raised by the claimants had been declined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur vide its award dated 2.4.1985, holding that it has not been proved that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver, Amar Singh. 2. The appeal was filed in this Court in the year 1985. In the meanwhile, the five minor children of the deceased have attained the age of majority and have filed Civil Misc. Application No. 8486 of 2003 for treating them as appellants in their own right and for discharging their next friend Sheela Devi. On the facts of the case, the aforesaid Civil Misc. is allowed. 3. The case of the claimants is that Bhagwan Dass was travelling from Pathankot to Chandigarh in bus No. PUR-8192 on 18.12.1982 and as the bus reached near Tanda by-pass on Pathankot-Jullundur road, the driver tried to overtake a truck, loaded with iron bars, which were protruding towards the rear side of the truck, one of which pierced through the front glass pane of the bus seriously injuring Bhagwan Dass. He was removed to the Tanda Civil Hospital and thereafter to Jalandhar where he succumbed to his injuries at about 4.20 P.M. on 19.12.1982. The report with regard to the accident was lodged on 19.12.1982 by Jagdish Ram (PW-5). The claimants accordingly filed a petition for compensation of Rs. two lacs on the basis that the deceased, who was a Constable in the Central Bureau of Investigation had been drawing a salary of Rs. 800/- per month. Along with the claim petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition. On Notice, the respondents, i.e., the Punjab State and the Punjab Roadways, the owners of the bus and Amar Singh its driver denied involvement of the bus in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, including one additional issue :- 1. On Notice, the respondents, i.e., the Punjab State and the Punjab Roadways, the owners of the bus and Amar Singh its driver denied involvement of the bus in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, including one additional issue :- 1. Whether on 18.12.1982 in the area of Tanda, the respondent No. 3 caused the accident in question by driving rashly and or negligently bus No. PUR-8192 belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resulting in injuries to Bhagwan Dass, leading to his death ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation if any, are the claimant-petitioners entitled and if so, from whom of the respondents ? OPP. 3. Relief. Additional issue "Whether the claimants have sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petition after limitation ? OPP." 4. The additional issue was taken up first and on a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal then went on to issue No. 1 and concluded that it appeared that Jagdish Ram (PW-5), who was the solitary eye-witness of the accident, was none other than the brother of claimant Sheela Devi and it appeared that he had not been travelling in the bus No. PUR-8192 as claimed by him and had not witnessed the accident. Several factors were taken into account in arriving at this conclusion which were :- (i) that the DDR recorded regarding the accident had not been in the nature of a complaint, (ii) the injuries had allegedly been caused to Bhagwan Dass, who was sitting on the front seat of the bus by iron roads, but the evidence of Dr. Madan Dev Saini (PW-1), who had medically examined Bhagwan Dass before his death and Dr. O.P. Chhabra (PW-2), who had conducted the post-mortem examination showed that the injuries could not have been caused with the rods as averred and (iii) that Jagdish Rams story that he had first brought the injured to the Civil Hospital at Tanda and thereafter to Jalandhar was also wrong as Dr. Mohan Dev Saini (PW-1) had stated that it was Amar Singh the bus driver, who had brought the injured to the Hospital. Issue No. 1 was accordingly decided against the claimants. Mohan Dev Saini (PW-1) had stated that it was Amar Singh the bus driver, who had brought the injured to the Hospital. Issue No. 1 was accordingly decided against the claimants. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed. 5. Shri Des Raj Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that from the evidence of Jagdish Ram, it was clear that the death had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Amar Singh and as he had not come into the witness-box, certain presumptions against him were liable to be drawn as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and others v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1735 and the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Asa Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 1981 Himachal Pradesh 75. 6. Mr. Sukant Gupta, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State has, however, opposed the claim of the appellants and has argued that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 was well reasoned and called for no interference. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. To my mind, the finding on issue No. 1 requires no interference. It is evident from the facts given by the Tribunal that Jagdish Ram had not been travelling in the bus in question along with the deceased. It would also be clear from the D.D.R. recorded on 19.12.1982 at his instance that the injuries had been caused to Bhagwan Das as the bus driver had suddenly applied the brakes to avoid a buffalo and had been hit from the rear side by a truck, causing injuries to Bhagwan Dass. This story has been completely changed in the claim petition by pleading that the injuries had been sustained by the deceased on account of the iron rods which had been protruding from a truck which was going ahead of the bus. The finding of the Tribunal is also supported by the evidence of the two doctors (PW-1 & PW-2), who had clearly stated that the injuries could not have been caused in the manner suggested by the claimants. The finding of the Tribunal is also supported by the evidence of the two doctors (PW-1 & PW-2), who had clearly stated that the injuries could not have been caused in the manner suggested by the claimants. The two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable on the facts of the present case. In both the judgments the principle of res ipsa loquitur had been applied on the given facts. They cannot have universal application. 9. Mr. Mahajan has finally urged that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of the no fault liability clause under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This plea has not been controverted by Mr. Sukant Gupta. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but it is directed that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased under the no fault liability clause. The payment shall be made within three months from the date that a certified copy of this judgment is supplied to the respondents. Appeal dismissed.