Mr. K. Kannan J. (Oral) - The appeal is against the award dismissing the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that the accident said to have taken place when the 1st respondent’s vehicle, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation hit her husband from behind and crushed him under wheels.

2. The contention raised in the claim petition was that the deceased was going on a bicycle to the house and when he was still at a distance of about 100 yards from the house, the bus belonged to the 1st respondent-Corporation coming from the side of Amritsar and proceeding towards Faridkot struck the deceased and he fell down from the cycle and got crushed. The statement was that the driver was immediately caught at the place by the members of public. The deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital at Zira in a severely mauled condition and he was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Faridkot for better treatment. However, the person died on the same day at 3 pm. The deceased was 25 to 26 years of age and he was an expert tailor master and he had also kept buffaloes to sell milk. He earned income of Rs.3500/- per month, which comprised of Rs.2500/- from his tailoring and Rs.1,000/- from sale of milk. The claimants were the widow and three minor children aged 4, 2 and 1.

3. The contention in reply was that the accident had taken place when the deceased, who was a passenger in the bus dropped from the front door in a running bus and he came under the wheels only on account of the negligent conduct in alighting from the bus even when the bus was in motion. This statement in defence was sought to be supported through what was recited in DDR register with the PS Zira, District Ferozepur on 01.01.1992 that was 4 days after the accident. The petitioner relied on her own version which was inconsistent with the version given by her father, who stated that he was also witness to the accident and that the accident took place when he was walking on the road when he and his daughter were going in cycle. With inconsistent versions coming about the manner in which the accident took place, the Tribunal held that the version given by the driver was more credible, for it was a version which was supported through an entry in an official document and therefore, the death ought to have been on account of the negligent conduct of the deceased himself. With these observations, the petition itself came to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant seeks to down play the inconsistencies in versions and would point out to the fact that the driver ought to take responsibility for what had happened when he was on the wheel, when he ought to have known that the bus had actually run over the deceased and he should have given a complaint immediately, if his version was true. On the other hand, he had fled from the place and he had lodged a statement four days after the incident to suit his own convenience and to twist facts to his benefit, exculpating himself from the incident causing death of a person. According to the learned counsel, the fact that he gave a complaint four days later without immediately attending to the deceased by taking him to the hospital or giving his version to the police must be taken as factors against the truth of his version. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would reiterate on the inconsistencies in version between the petitioner and her father about how the accident had taken place.

5. The basis for claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act still is in the realm of tort except certain provisions relating to strict liability scheme imposed providing for a cap on liability in hit and run cases. A strict liability, which was brought through under Section 163-A by an amendment that was effective from 14.11.1994 by an Act 54 of 1994, was to enable persons who were economically poorer sections whose income was less than Rs.40,000/- to claim compensation on fixed scales even without having