Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mano Devi And Ors. vs Chander Singh And Ors. on 24 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ829, (1994)106PLR666
JUDGMENT N.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the widow, sons and daughters of Shiv Charan, who died on 15.4.1981 as a result of his falling down from bus No. HYR 1009, belonging to Haryana Roadways. The deceased got into the bus from Dighal bus stand. The bus was on its way to Rohtak. It has come in the evidence that the bus was over-crowded. After the bus started and had covered only 5 to 10 paces, a speed breaker fell on the way and on account of the jerk of the bus which it had in view of speed breaker, the deceased fell down from the foot rest of the bus because he could not get into it in view of the same being over-crowded. The deceased was crushed by the rear wheel of the bus on account of his falling down. The claimants filed application with the allegations that the bus driver was negligent. After appreciating the entire evidence, it has been held that the driver of the bus was not negligent and that the claimants have failed to prove the negligence on the part of the bus driver.
2. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that since the door was at the back of the rear wheels, it is not understandable as to how the deceased could be negligent when he was crushed under the wheels. It has been argued that the deceased could not be negligent and that it was the negligence of the bus driver on account of which Shiv Charan died. The argument is not acceptable. This Court is not to determine in this case whether Shiv Charan was negligent or not, but what is to be seen is whether the driver of the bus was negligent or not. It has been admitted by all the witnesses produced by the claimants that the deceased was standing on the foot rest and that the bus was going at a snail speed and had hardly covered 5-10 paces when a speed breaker came and on account of the jerk of the speed breaker the deceased fell down and was crushed under the rear wheel No witness has been called upon to explain as to how the body of the deceased came under the rear wheel. This Court in the absence of evidence would not be in a position to give any finding whether the wheels where behind the rear door or not. May be, on account of the jerk the deceased might have been thrown in such a position on the road that his body came under the rear wheels.
3. For the reasons recorded above, it cannot be held that the claimants have been able to prove the negligence of the bus driver.
4. This leads me to decide whether the claimants are entitled to grant of compensation under no fault liability under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Section 140 of the Act, on the principle of no fault liability, makes the owner of the vehicle liable for compensation for death even when the accident is not due to the fault of the owner or driver of the vehicle and even if the accident has taken place due to the fault of the victim. In view thereof, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to the grant of compensation under 'no fault liability' to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application. I order accordingly. The widow of the deceased is entitled to half of the compensation, whereas other heirs are entitled to the other half in equal shares. The claimants are also held entitled to the grant of costs of the appeal which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-.