KASHMIRI LAL Vs. DOABA ROADWAYS
LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-10
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 10,1997

KASHMIRI LAL Appellant
VERSUS
Doaba Roadways Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K.PALLI, J. - (1.)THE claim petition filed by the appellant, who is husband of deceased Mst. Kishna Devi alias Satya Devi, who died in an accident, stands dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, the appellant has been granted compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been found that the death occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased and not on account of rash and negligence driving of the driver. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the bus, respondent No. 2 is the driver, respondent No. 3 is the conductor of the bus, whereas respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company. The parties, herein-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as 'claimant' and 'respondents'.
(2.)THE wife of the claimant, as per averments in the claim petition, was in the process of boarding the bus when the bus took up speed due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and in sequence was thrown out and crushed under the wheels.
The version given by the other side is that the deceased while attempting to board the bus, opened the front gate, that is, exist gate and immediately thereafter jumped out of the bus and was crushed under the wheels. According to them, the bus was in the first gear when the deceased opened the door and jumped out of it and due to pressure of the door, she could not have safe landing and fell under the rear wheel of the bus. It was denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel appearing for the claimant contends that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, herein-after referred to as the 'Tribunal', has erred in holding that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and it is also pleaded that in any situation the claimant was entitled to the statutory amount as amended and the grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- under this head is not proper. In support of his argument reliance is being placed on a judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in FAO (MVA) No. 205 of 1995, decided on July 16, 1996, titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Ors.


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