- (1.) Both the appeals are at the instance of the State Transport Corporation contending both on the issue of negligence and the quantum.
(2.) FAO No. 7025 of 2010 arises out of an award for compensation for death of a person who was travelling in a motor cycle along with the injured, which is subject matter of appeal in FAO No. 7025 of 2010. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when both the injured and the deceased were travelling in a motor cycle and they were supposed to have been hit from behind by the State Transport Corporation bus. The eye witness account was that after causing the accident, the driver of the bus got down from the bus and ran away from the spot. FIR was lodged immediately after the accident. As against the evidence tendered on behalf of the claimant, the suggestion put to him was that the driver of the motor cycle was himself negligent. The Tribunal rejected such a line of defence also as one without any pleadings. Even as regards the contention that the vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident, the Tribunal reasoned that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus had himself not examined to tender evidence that he had not caused any accident. Non-examination of a driver in such a case was crucial and the finding that the State Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and the driver was negligent cannot, therefore, be assailed. I affirm the said finding and hold that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus was negligent and the vehicle had been involved in the accident.
(3.) The issue will not be complete without adverting to the contention made by the counsel appearing for the Appellant that the driver of the motor cycle had not been shown to have had a driving licence to drive the motor cycle. The concept of contributory negligence cannot be inferred or presumed in cases where a person involved in the accident did not have a driving licence. This issue is again no longer res Integra and this has been considered by this Court itself in Mohinder Singh Sohal v. Ramesh Kumar, 1981 AIR(P&H) 199. There are decisions of other Courts as well taking up the same line of reasoning that want of driving licence will not be itself an inference on contributory negligence. (Please see also Gujarat State Transport Corporation v. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji, 2000 AIHC 3117 (Guj); New India Assurance Company Limited v. Bundel Singh Panwar, 2007 AIR(Utr) 18; Manjo Bee v. Sajjad Khan, 2007 ACJ 737 (M.P.) and Sukhbir v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, 2006 AIHC 3587. It is also contended by him that the motor cycle was not even shown to have been insured. Even this is irrelevant and what applies to the issue of want of driving licence also would apply to an issue of driving of an uninsured vehicle as far as the finding of negligence is concerned. (Please see: Shankhardhar Singh v. Kundanlal, 1990 2 ACC 254 (M.P.). I, therefore, reject the plea of contributory negligence also and I find that the negligence shall have to be taken as fully established against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus.;