Public transport driver negligent for unsafe parking on hilly road during heavy rain; 'act of God' rejected as foreseeable; liability for stationary vehicle upheld due to proximate use nexus; compensation for 90% disability affirmed.

Judgment :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This Appeal from Order has been preferred by appellants-Corporation, Pithoragarh, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), assailing the judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in M.A.C.P. No.16 of 2014 Sohan Lal Vs. Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others, whereby, claim petition filed by the respondent–claimant under Section 166 of the Act was allowed and appellants-Corporation was held liable to pay compensation to respondent-claimant along with interest.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent-claimant, aged about 38 years at the time of the accident, was travelling on 17.06.2013 in a bus bearing registration no.UK-07-PA-1440 belonging to Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The respondent- claimant alleged that when the bus reached near Kasan Bend on Sheraghat Road within the limits of Police Station Kotwali, Almora, at about 08:00 a.m., the bus met with an accident due to rash and negligence of its driver and parking it at an unsafe place on a hilly road. Owing to heavy rainfall and cloudburst, the bus was allegedly engulfed by a deluge and swept away, resulting in grievous injuries to him. It was pleaded that respondent-claimant sustained severe spinal injuries leading to permanent disability, and despite treatment at various hospitals including Almora, Delhi and other medical institutions, he became 90% disabled and lost his earning capacity permanently.

3. The respondent-claimant further pleaded that prior to the accident he was working as a driver-cum-cook at Delhi and was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in accident, he became paraplegic, could not continue his profession, and became fully dependent upon others for his livelihood. The claim petition sought compensation under various heads including loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and transportation expenses.

4. Appellants-Corporation filed its written statement denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was pleaded that the accident did not occur due to any fault on the part of driver rather it was an ‘act of God’. According to appellants-Corporation, due to sudden cloudburst and heavy rainfall, a deluge occurred and the bus was swept away. It was asserted that the driver had parked bus at a safe place on the request of passengers and had taken all reasonable precautions expected of a driver on a hilly road. Appellants-Corporation further pleaded that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time and that respondent- claimant had already been paid interim compensation and humanitarian assistance. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed as being excessive and exaggerated.

5. The driver of bus, arrayed as opposite party no.3, also filed his written statement supporting the stand of appellants-Corporation. He asserted that the accident occurred solely due to natural forces beyond human control and not due to rash or negligent driving. He stated that it was raining heavily, visibility was poor, and considering the safety of passengers, he had parked the bus at Kasan Bend. He denied that he had ignored any request of the passengers or that he had driven the bu