Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
K.P. Bhandari, J.
Devkinangan Bangur And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 1067 of 1987
Decided On : 23-04-1993

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rohit Tandon and P.C. Goyal
For the Respondent: H.L. Sibal, A.G. and Meena Nadan, A.A.G.

The Court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding payment of compensation to the deceased family are in the nature of social piece of legislation and have to be given beneficial interpretation.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - AMENDMENT OF CLAIM - INTEREST - SECTION 110B OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939.
Fact of the Case:

A Haryana Roadways bus collided with a car, resulting in the death of two passengers and serious injuries to three others. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the injured passengers and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers, finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car driver.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Court awarded compensation to the injured passengers and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers, including interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver or the car driver? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation and, if so, how much? 3. Whether the delay in filing the claim petition should be condoned? 4. Whether the claimants can amend their claim for compensation on appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence on record clearly established that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The bus driver was driving at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road, and he failed to avoid the collision with the car. 2. The Court awarded compensation to the injured passengers and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers, taking into account the nature and extent of their injuries, the loss of income, and the mental shock suffered by them. The Court also awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application. 3. The Court held that the delay in filing the claim petition should be condoned, as the claimants were prevented from presenting the claim petition due to the fact that they remained in hospitals in Calcutta and Delhi for a considerable time. They were also shocked due to the death of their wives. 4. The Court held that the claimants could amend their claim for compensation on appeal, as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding payment of compensation to the deceased family are in the nature of social piece of legislation and have to be given beneficial interpretation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of the Tribunal were set aside, and the claimants were awarded compensation as determined by the High Court.

JUDGMENT :

K.P. Bhandari, J.

This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fridabad, dated 12.8,1987 whereby claim of the appellant was dismissed.

2. In the present case, Haryana Roadways Bus struck against the car of the claimants. Driver of car died on the spot. There were five occupants in the car who received serious injuries. Kama Devi was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. On arrival in the hospital, Radha Devi was also declared dead. P. L. Dhanuka, claimant, and D. N Bangur, appellant also received serious injuries. They remained confined in the hospital in Delhi and Calcutta. The Tribunal framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the impugned accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HRW 4535 by respondent No. 3? OPP.

2. Whether the accident was earned due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. DIA 5296 by deceased Driver Deep Chand ? OPR.

3. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? OPP.

4. Whether the petition is time barred ? OPR 1 to 3.

5. Relief."

My findings on the issues are as under :-

Issue Nos. 1 & 2.

3. In this case the learned counsel for the appellants has brought my attention to the evidence of PW 4 Prem Chand. PW-5 Devki Nandan had deposed that on 4.6.1984, he alongwith other persons were coming from Brindaban to Delhi. He has stated that Kanta Devi, Radha Devi, Pursotam Lal, he himself and the driver were the occupants of the car. He has stated that at about 4 15 p.m. they were near Palwal and at that time a Haryana Roadways Bus No. 4535 was coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. The driver of the bus was driving the bus on the wrong side of the road, i.e. right hand side of the road. The bus dashed into the vehicle. All the rive occupants of the car received various injuries. He pointed out that the accident was so serious that Radha Devi and Purshotam Lal were thrown out the vehicle Purshotam Lal received head injuries and one of his eye was thrown out of the sockat. He also received injuries on his waist. The Driver of the car died on the spot. Kanta Devi was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. The remaining three were referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where Radha Devi was declared dead. The accident was so serious that the Driver and two ladies who were travelling in the car died Devki Nandan also received very serious injuries.

PW-10 Purshotam Lal has also supported the statement of Devki Nandan. He has stated that he alongwith others were coming from Bindraban to Delhi. At about 4.15 p.m. when they were little short of Palwal, a Haryana Roadways Bus coming from the opposite direction hit the car. He also received extensive injuries.

PW 4 Prem Chand has deposed that he was present at the site of the accident. He his stated that neither the bus driver not the car driver could avoid the accident. According to him, the bus driver could be more blamed for the accident.

The respondents have examined Prithvi Singh RW1, Conductor, and Ami Chand RW2, Driver, to support their stand that the bus was not driven rashly and negligently. On consideration of the evidence on record, f find that Devki Nandan PW9 was travelling in the car and was sitting on the front seat He has clearly stated that the Haryana Roadways bus was coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed The bus struck against the car. To the same effect is the statement of Purshotam Lal PW10. Even Prera Chand PW4 has deposed that the bus driver was more to blame for the accident.

FIR Ex. PB regarding incident was lodged. A perusal of the FIR shows that the incident was reported to the police by Prem Singh, Sarpanch of Bamani Khera. It has been proved by Dharampal Singh, ASI. According to the FIR, the accident has been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus The statement in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAK.P. Bhandari, J.Devkinangan Bangur And Others – AppellantsVersusState Of Haryana And Others – RespondentsFirst Appeal From Order No. 1067 of 1987Decided On : 23-04-1993

The Court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding payment of compensation to the deceased family are in the nature of social piece of legislation and have to be given beneficial interpretation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
K.P. Bhandari, J.
Devkinangan Bangur And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 1067 of 1987
Decided On : 23-04-1993