Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunehra Singh vs Baljit Singh on 28 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 A I H C 1841, (2001) 1 PUN LR 523, (2001) 2 TAC 44, (2001) 1 RECCIVR 499, (2001) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 189
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant in M ACT No. 8/93 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The appellant had claimed compensation for the injuries, he had allegedly received in the accident. According to the case of the appellant, on 6.10.1992 at about 2.15 PM, he was going with one Paramjit Singh on scooter from Cheema Chowk to Samrala Chowk when bus No. PB-12-9608 of came from back side and hit the scooter. Both of them fell down and received injuries. Paramjit Singh died on the spot. Paramjit Singh was driving the scooter and the appellant was on pillion'seat. It is contended that Paramjit Singh was driving scooter on his left side and the bus came at a high speed without blowing horn and it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus that the accident took place.
2. The contention of the respondents is that the accident has not taken place because of the bus and that the bus is falsely implicated in this case and a false case has been registered against the driver of the bus. Rest of the contentions in the written statement are of denial of the contentions made in various paragraphs. Both the respondents have given similar written statements. So far as the evidence is concerned, the appellant has examined six witnesses. Out of the witnesses produced, Appellant-Sunehra Singh (AW-2) and Raghbir Singh, A W-4 are the witnesses to the accident. Appellant Sunehra Singh, in his deposition has stated that bus came from back side and hit the scooter from behind and they both fell down on the road and received multiple injuries. A W-4 Raghbir Singh has stated that he was going on a scooter and saw an accident in which a bus hit the scooter of his brother this brother was Paramjit Singh). He has stated that Paramjit Singh and Sunehra Singh both fell on the ground.
3. The driver of the bus in his deposition has stated that when he was proceeding with the bus on the road, just before Samrala road many people had collected, and the bus could not pass further, therefore, he parked the bus and at the instance of the public and passengers, he took them to the hospital.
4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the accident has been amply proved while contrary arguments have been raised by the counsel for the respondents. The presence of the bus and the driver is admitted. The injuries to the appellant and Paramjit Singh have been proved then the question is what should be the reason for disbelieving the say of the appellant. According the learned Tribunal, the appellant could not have witnessed the bus before the accident because he was going ahead of the bus and he has stated that he became unconscious within 2-3 minutes and in these 2-3 minutes, he could not have noticed the bus number. However, with this position, it cannot be said that the allegation made by the appellant that he was hit by bus from behind can be disputed. The number of bus could not have been noted by him. Raghbir Singh, AW-4 has stated that after the incident, he went to the house to inform about the accident. However, the learned Tribunal has found that Sunehra Singh stated that he had come on the spot. He was there on the spot as per his version and he was also going on the scooter. Therefore, there is no contradiction in his statement when he says that he went home to inform the relatives. On the above reasons, the Tribunal held that Raghbir Singh could not be believed. 1 do not agree with this contention. Raghbir Singh was on the spot and must have gone to his house to inform his relatives. Therefore, it cannot be said that he could not have noticed the accident by bus and the bus number. The accident has taken place in Ludhiana Town. When so many people had gathered, police also could have been called. Paramjit Singh had died on the spot. There was no necessity of rushing dead body of Paramjit Singh to the hospital in the bus. Moreover, if the accident was not caused by the bus, it was not the duty of the respondent-driver to take the injured and deceased in the bus to the hospital. The conductor of the bus had not been examine'd. If the bus was not involved in the accident, he was also an important witness. Yard book is not produced which could have shown as to what incident had taken place. This being so, I am not able to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had not taken place because of the scooter being dashed by the bus, as alleged by the appellant.
5. Then in the question of negligence.
6. The bus dashed the scooter from behind. It was, therefore, for the driver to explain as to how the accident took place if he was not involved. This is not done. Therefore, the fact that the bus dashed the scooter from behind is 'res-ipsa-loquitur'. In this case the burden was on the respondents to prove that there was no negligence. Therefore, I hold that the accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the bus and the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is set-aside.
7. The next point is regarding the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the appellant. The Tribunal has arrived at a figure of compensation. However, it has not given any reason for his conclusion. It should have given the details specifying different heads for calculation of the amount of compensation and the reasons for computing the amount in the particular heads. The compensation is to be compuled under various heads and some are illustrated as under :-
(1) Pain, shock and sufferings and loss of aminities in future life. (2) Pecuniary loss
a) Expenses such as medicines, stay in the hospital, treatment and other ancillary expenses.
b) Loss of income for the period the injured could not work.
c) Future loss of income in case of permanent disability.
d) Loss suffered by persons who were required to stay in the hospital/attend the injured.
e) Expenses of any Nurse/Attendant, if had to be engaged.
f) Expenses likely to be incurred in future because of continuing treatment as a result of the accident.
g) Any other expenses being directly related to the accident.
The Tribunal while considering future loss can also take into account the fall which can be likely in the jrice of money, rise in prices and chances of future rise n income.
8. In view of the above reasons, I find that the issue No. 2 is required to be set-aside and the matter should be re-nanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding the same n accordance with law.
9. As a result, this appeal is partly allowed. The finding in issue No. 1 is set-aside and the driver of the bus is held to be negligent in causing (heaccident. Finding on ssue No. 2 is set-aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law.
10. Appeal partly allowed.