M/S Haryana Roadways v. Prem Prakash Suri and Others

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT (ORAL): REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal filed by M/s. Haryana Roadways seeks to impugn the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 27.04.2002 whereby an award in the sum of ` 6,15,000/- (inclusive of interim compensation) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award was passed in Petition No.90/94 in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4 and against the appellant. 2011:DHC:4687

2. The aforesaid petition pertained to a road accident which took place on 08.11.1993 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mangol Puri, involving vehicle No.HR-12-8618 belonging to the Haryana Roadways. The offending vehicle allegedly hit the two-wheeler scooter on which one Prem Prakash Suri was travelling with his wife. While the husband sustained injuries, the wife succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Two Claim Petitions were filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by Shri Prem Prakash Suri and for the untimely demise of his wife, which culminated in the passing of the aforesaid judgment and award dated 27.04.2002.

3. It also deserves to be mentioned at the outset that though initially the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 entered appearance and contested the petition, subsequently for reasons best known to them the said respondents chose to absent themselves from the proceedings. Notice to the respondent No.5-driver was dispensed with on February 24, 2009 and thus this Court did not have the opportunity to hear the respondents.

4. The sole contention of Mr. Yashpal Rangi, the learned counsel for the appellant-M/s. Haryana Roadways, is that the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal deserves to be set aside for the reason that the respondents No.1 to 4, who were the claimants in the said petition, have failed to establish on record that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.5, the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus, which caused the accident. The learned counsel has heavily relied upon the testimony of RW[1] Banwari Lal, the driver of the bus in question and RW[2] Mahabir Singh, the conductor of the said bus, to contend that the testimonies of the aforesaid two witnesses deserve to be believed while the testimony of the respondent No.1, the husband of the deceased, who had also sustained injuries in the accident, is unworthy of credence. I pause at this juncture to note that the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are not available on the record of the learned Tribunal which was requisitioned by this Court for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. It is, therefore, deemed expedient to reproduce the portion of the judgment which deals with the testimonies of the said witnesses:-

5. After perusal of the aforesaid portion of the award, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident was not the result of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.5-driver, but was in fact the outcome of the negligence of the husband of the deceased. I say so for the reason that while the version of the accident given by the claimants as set out in the Claim Petition is corroborated by the testimony of PW[1] Prem Prakash Suri (the husband of the deceased), the pleadings of M/s. Haryana Roadways, the appellant, are at variance with the pleadings of the respondent No.5-driver as also the evidence adduced by the appellant, as is clear from the following.

6. The version of the accident as set out in the Claim Petition is that, on the fateful day, the bus driven by the respondent No.5 in a very rash, negligent and careless manner, had hit the scooter of the respondent No.1 from the right side, as a result of which both the riders, viz., the respondent No.1 and his deceased wife, along with the scooter, fell down on the left side, and the deceased was dragged by the said bus for some distance before the bus was eventually stopped by the respondent No.5-driver. The aforesaid version of the accident as set out in the Claim Petition is in tandem with the version of the accident given by PW[1] Prem Prakash Suri in the witness-box as reproduced hereinabove.

7. A look now at the version of the accident given by the respondent No.5, the driver of the vehicle, in the written statement filed by him, which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereunder:- “It is submitted that at the alleged place of accident on 8.11.1993 the Police personnel has placed the barricade on the road for checking and the distance between the barricade was about 8-9 feet. Without realizing the paucity of space and against the rules of overtaking, the petitioner tried to take forcible entry into the barricade. When the bus in question has already entered into the barricade and half way of crossing it (sic.), the petitioner entered the barricade and hit the corner of the left barricade placed by the Police and fall on right-side (sic.) and the pillion rider of the said scooter No.DDI-4947 came under the rear left wheels of the bus No.HR-12-8618 and sustained fatal injury alongwith the petitioner. Hence the alleged accident occurred purely due to the own fault and negligence of the petitioner himself.”

8. Interestingly, an altogether different version is given by the appellant-M/s. Haryana Roadways in the written statement filed by it, wherein it is stated that the driver of the scooter in his anxiety to cross the barrier alongwith the bus hit the bus in question, as a result of which the woman riding pillion on the scooter fell down and sustained injuries and died due to those injuries. Thus, the appellant (Haryana Roadways) and the respondent No.5 (driver of Haryana Roadways) have given two different versions of the accident. It has been rightly observed by the learned Tribunal that if the accident had taken place as delineated by the appellant, there would have been no occasion for the deceased to be run over by the bus in question. The fact that the deceased came under the rear left wheel of the bus is admitted in the written statement filed by the respondent No.5.-driver (Banwari Lal), who appeared in the witness box as RW[1]. The said witness as well as RW[2] Mahabir Singh, the conductor of the bus in question, altogether failed to substantiate the version of the accident delineated in the pleadings of the appellant. What RW[1] stated in the witness box was that since there was not enough space for the twowheeler scooter to overtake the bus, the scooter hit against the barricade and fell down. A bare glance at the site plan Exhibit PW1/15, however, does not show any barricade having been placed at the spot of the accident.

9. From the aforesaid, it is amply clear that there are three different versions of the accident on the record. The first version is the version of the accident given by the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants in their pleadings that the bus came from behind and hit the scooter, which version has been corroborated by PW[1] Prem Prakash Suri, the husband of the deceased. The second version of the accident is the version given by the driver of the bus (the respondent No.5), who has stated in his pleadings as well as in his evidence that the bus in question was ahead of the scooter, the petitioner entered the barricade placed by the Police and hit the left corner of the barricade in the process of attempting to overtake the bus. The third version of the accident is the version given by the appellant-M/s. Haryana Roadways, which, in its written statement, has stated that the driver of the scooter hit the bus in question, as a result of which the woman riding pillion on the scooter fell down. The inescapable conclusion is that the version of the accident given by the driver of the bus and the owner of the bus are not only contradictory to the version of the accident given by the husband of the deceased, who was driving the scooter, PW[1] Prem Prakash Suri, but both the aforesaid versions are also at variance with each other nor in fact do they tally with the version of the accident given in the testimonies of RW[1] and RW[2], the driver and the conductor of the offending bus respectively.

10. In view of the aforesaid, I am not able to find any cogent justification for differing with the findings of the learned Tribunal, which has held that the testimonies of RW[1] and RW[2] are difficult to accept. Further, as noticed by the learned Tribunal, the injuries sustained by the deceased corroborate the version given by the respondent No.1, the husband of the deceased, in that the said injuries are suggestive of the fact that the deceased was dragged for quite some distance by the offending bus.