RAM PERTAP Vs. GENERAL MANAGERPUNJAB ROADWAYSAMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 5-101960, dismissing the appellant's application for claim in respect of an accident caused by bus No. P. N. E. 8126 of the Punjab Roadways, Ambala on 21-121958, in which he (appellant) received some injuries. In this application he claims Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation. This claim application was on 6-71960 dismissed in default but was later restored in August, 1960.

(2.) The trial of the claim application proceeded on the following issues:

(3.) On appeal in this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant referred me to the statement of Om Prakash Kaushal, R. W. 1, who was the conductor of the bus in question on 21-12-1958 when it was coming from Patiala to Delhi. He has stated that it was drizzling on that day and the accident took place one mile ahead of Shambu village towards Ambala side. The bus slipped and on account of that skidding, it struck against a bus coming from the opposite side. The complaint book was asked for by the applicant who was also travelling by that bus and he noted down his remarks just after the accident, a copy of those remarks is Exhibit R. W. 1/1. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not remember if another bus was going ahead of the bus in question nor did the witness remember if Sad Singh driver of the bus in question tried to overtake the bus alleged to be ahead of it. The witness, however, explained that the question of overtaking the bus did not arise as the sealed governor was fixed in the bus in question and its speed was limited to 35 miles only. In cross-examination by the Tribunal, the witness could not say that the accident took place as Sadhu Singh wanted to overtake another bus going ahead because the witness was sitting on the back seat. Singh, driver has since left the service of the Punjab Roadways of his own accord. As a matter of fact driver Sadhu Singh was also injured in the same accident and he never joined after he came out of the hospital where he had been admitted for treatment. The appellant's counsel has very forcefully contended that but for the negligence of the driver, the bus could not have skidded and that on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is for the Punjab Roadways to explain want of negligence on the part of the driver. The counsel, in other words, contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is fully attracted by the facts and circumstances of this case.