Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Krishanu Ram - Appellant
Versus
Bhagirath and others - Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 414 of 2009
Decided on : 1-1-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Mr. Shivendera Singh
For the respondents No.2-3: Mr. Jaggan Nath, Mr. S.C. Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie proof of rash and negligent driving in motor accident cases and the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation without succumbing to procedural technicalities.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 158(6), 166(4), 169, 176(b) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Sections 158(6), 166(4), 169, and 176(b), and their interpretation in the context of determining compensation for a motor accident. The court emphasized the requirement for prima facie proof of rash and negligent driving and highlighted the applicability of the Act in determining compensation without succumbing to procedural technicalities.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition for compensation after his wife died in a motor vehicle accident. The tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that the deceased had alighted from the bus without any signal to stop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, and the claimant was entitled to compensation.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, the amount of compensation, and non-joinder of necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for prima facie proof of rash and negligent driving and highlighted the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation without succumbing to procedural technicalities.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment, granted the claim petition, and passed an award of Rs. 4,72,000 in favor of the claimants against the owner-HRTC.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.4.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, H.P. in MAC No. 85 of 2007, titled Krishanu Ram versus Bhagi Rath and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short.
2. Smt. Shanti Devi was traveling in the bus bearing registration No. HP-63-0467 owned by HRTC, on 21.8.2007, which met with an accident while she was de-boarding the said bus at Ghagus (Bridge) and died on the spot. The claimant Krishanu Ram-husband of the deceased, filed claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition.
3. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the owner, driver and conductor and following issues came to be framed.
(i) Whether the deceased Smt. Shanti Devi died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-63-0467, owned by respondent No.3 and being driven by respondent No. 1 which took place on 21.8.2007, at about 10 a.m. at village Ghagus (Ghagus Bridge), OPP.
(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from which of the respondents? OPP.
(iii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPR-2.
(iv) Relief.
4. The claimant has examined H.C. Jai Ram (PW2), Sh. Mast Ram (PW3), Sh. Rattan Lal (PW4) and himself stepped into the witness-box as PW1.
5. Respondents, on the other hand, have not led any evidence. However, driver Bhagi Rath stepped into the witness-box as RW1. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained un-rebutted and despite that impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle and was de-boarding rather alighting from the bus and in that process, without getting signal from the conductor, the driver drove the bus ahead. In terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” read with Motor Vehicles Rules, conductor was supposed to give signal to the driver and driver was supposed to wait for the signal of the conductor before starting the bus.
7. The driver had to exercise due care and caution. It is beaten law of the land that it is the driver with whom the loss risk lies.
8. The Tribunal has recorded in the impugned award that the vehicle was in the state of slow pace and thus it is not the negligence of the driver or the conductor. Perhaps the learned Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that in the claim cases, the claimant has not to prove the case by preponderance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt but is supposed to prove the case by prima facie proof that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver.
9. It is apt to record herein that the law on motor accidents claim has gone through the see change. Even police report can be treated as claim petition, under Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”. The copy of FIR Ext. PW2/A is on the record, which do disclose that the FIR was lodged against the driver and the conductor.
10. The claimant has stated in the FIR that on reaching at Ghagus Bridge he and his wife were about to alight from the bus and his wife was standing at the front window of the bus. The driver suddenly drove the bus due to which his wife fell down on the bridge out of the front window of the bus and was crushed by rear tyre of the bus and died on the spot.
11. Respondent No. 3 in reply to para 24 of the claim petition stated that the bus was about to stop to give the pass to another vehicle and the deceased had jumped out of the window of the moving bus. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3 herein.
“16. Para No. 24 of the petition is admitted to the extent boarded the bus No. HP-63-0467 rest of the para
