MADHU SEHGAL Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-10
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 07,1997

MADHU SEHGAL Appellant
VERSUS
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SEMA SINGH AND ANR. VS. SOHANLAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-195] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by Mr. R.L. Sharma, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan & Sirmaur Districts at Solan. By means of impugned award in Case No. 8-S/2 of 1985 dated 30.6.1986, claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for grant of compensation has been rejected.
(2.)IN order to properly appreciate the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties before us, it is necessary to refer to a few facts material for determination of the present appeal.
Appellant No. 1 Madhu Sehgal is the widow and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Sunny and Nany are the minor sons and the appellant No. 4 Avinash Devi is the mother, respectively of late Narinder Pal Sehgal, who according to the appellants had died in a motor vehicle accident on 1.1.1985 at a place near Deli within jurisdiction of police station Parwanoo at about 6.00 p.m. According to the appellants, deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. PBP 1819 while he was on his way to Shimla, whereas bus bearing registration No. HIU 165 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 2, resulting in the accident which led to the death of Narinder Pal Sehgal. Further case of the appellants was that Narinder Pal Sehgal died on way to hospital. Age of the deceased was pleaded to be 30 years and his income was stated to be Rs. 1,200/- p.m. from the shop that was being run by him. In reply, stand of the respondent No. 1 was that the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased under the influence of liquor in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident in question and a report vide F.I.R. No. 3/85 dated 1.1.1985 was lodged against him at police station Parwanoo under Sections 279/337, Indian Penal Code. Further case pleaded by the driver was that the bus was being driven in a manner whereby it was under his complete control. Identical stand was taken up by respondent No. 2 driver in his separately filed written statement. It was further pleaded by the driver that it was not the bus that had struck the motor cycle but it was other way round. Petition was also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of bus No. HIU 165 by its driver Dharam Singh, respondent No. 2? OPP (2) Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of deceased Narinder Pal Sehgal of motor cycle No. PBP 1819? OPR (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP (4) Relief.

(3.)IN respect of their case, Madhu Sehgal, appellant No. 1, appealed as her own witness and gave the age of the deceased to be 30 years as well as his income at Rs. 40-50 per day. She also stated that her husband was in good health. Deceased was stated to be giving Rs. 400 to Rs. 500/- to his mother after one month or so. Because of the death of her husband, it had become difficult for appellant No. 1 to give good education to her children. All the appellants were stated to be dependent upon the deceased. In cross-examination, conducted on behalf of the respondents, she denied the suggestion that his daily income was Rs. 51- to Rs. 10/- per day or it was not Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day. Kamaljeet Singh, PW 2, and another person who was driving on a separate motor cycle along with one Amrit Paul, has categorically stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of bus No. HIU 165. According to the PW, the bus was on the descent, whereas the deceased as well as the other witness along with a pillion rider were on the ascent. Bus came from the wrong side at a high speed and hit the motor cycle of Narinder Pal Sehgal, resulting in his falling down on the road and he sustained injuries. No cross-examination was directed on this aspect of the case stated by the appellant No. 1, whereas she denied the suggestion regarding the bus coming on its extreme left or that the deceased having taken his motor cycle on the wrong side, resulting in the accident in question.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.