The main legal point established is the duty of care and caution owed by a bus driver, and the negligence that arises when such duty is not observed, leading to a motor vehicle accident.

S.S.Sodhi, J.

1. The Punjab Roadways bus PUA-9349 was on its way to Amritsar from Jandiala when it hit into a stationary truck from behind. As a result of the impact between these two vehicles, the claimant Suresh Chopra, who was travelling in the bus sustained injuries. This accident had occurred on August 14, 1973 at about 8.15 p.m.

2. The Tribunal negatived the claimants claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by him, holding that he had failed to prove that the bus driver was to blame for this accident.

3. There is no dispute in this case that the bus had indeed hit into a stationary truck. Kundan Singh the bus driver, when he appeared in the witness box as RW-1 deposed that, he had not seen this truck on account of the headlights of a truck coming from the opposite direction. According to the evidence led by the claimant this stationary truck was standing on the kacha portion on the left side of the road when the bus hit into it. The respondents, on the other hand, had tried to show that the truck was not wholly on the kacha portion, but it was partly on the kacha and partly on the metalled portion of the road. How the stationary truck was parked is not, however, a matter of any material consequence as the main point that arises here is, did the bus driver observe the duty of care resting upon him on being blinded by the headlights of the on-coming vehicle from the opposite direction ? He deposed that he applied the brakes when he saw the standing truck, but, in a situation like the one, as has emerged in this case, it was clearly incumbent upon the bus driver to have stopped the bus there and then, if his visibility was for any reason impaired or obstructed. In other words, if on account of the headlights of the truck coming from the opposite direction he was not in a position to see the road ahead, considerations of care and caution should have rendered it imperative for him to have stopped and if he did not do so, the blinding effect of the headlights cannot absolve him from the charge of negligence inherent in his bus striking against a stationary truck in this manner. On the face of it, therefore, negligence of the bus driver is writ large in this case.

4. It has also come in evidence that the bus was being driven at a fast speed at the time of the impact. Indicative of this is the fact that the stationary truck was pushed to some distance on account of the impact and at the same time a number of passengers in the bus received injuries which were serious injuries too in some cases.

5. The respondents had no doubt examined PW-2 Dalbir Singh and RW-3 Jagdish Chander, who claimed to be passengers in the bus to depose that the bus was being driven at a slow speed, but it is pertinent to note that these two witnesses came forth to depose to this effect for the first time in court. No statement of theirs was recorded by the police and neither of them suffered any injuries in this accident, nor could they explain how other passengers received injuries if the bus was indeed going at a slow speed. It also deserves note that Kundan Singh was a person known to the bus driver for over four years prior to this accident. Turning to RW-4, Kirpal Singh, the bus conductor, it will be seen that he admitted that some of the passengers had received injuries in this accident, but he went on to say that these injuries were not serious. This is believed by the fact that atleast one of the injured passengers died besides others who received serious injuries.

6. Seen in the totatity of the circumstances of this cased, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the blame for the accident lay whollo upon the rash and negligent driving of Kundan Singh, the driver of the bus.

7. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the issue relating to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. A specific issue to this effect had been framed and evidence too had been led thereon by the parties. In such a situation, it