Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) BY this judgment the following four first appeals, which are directed against the order dated 28.8.1970 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, will be decided: 1. F.A.O. No. 4 of 1971 : State of Haryana v. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh.
(2.) F .A.O. No. 3 of 1971 : State of Haryana v. Mrs. Harbans Kaur. F.A.O. No. 2 of 1971 : State of Haryana v. Muni Devi.
(3.) F .A.O. No. 191 of 1970 : State of Haryana v. Harbans Kaur and Ors. (legal representatives of Mrs. Prem Kaur) 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 18.12.1967, Lt. Col. Balbir Singh, Respondent was traveling in car No. DLJ -7679 from Hissar to Delhi along with his family members consisting of his wife Harbans Kaur, his mother -in -law Prem Kaur and Miss Bimla and the car was driven by the driver Jagdish Parshad. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh was sitting on the front seat by the side of the driver while his wife Harbans Kaur, his mother -in -law Prem Kaur and Miss Bimla were sitting on the back seat of the car. They started from Hissar at about 11.15 a.m. and when they reached near village Sankhol in Rohtak District at about 3.30 p.m., bus No. HRR 4224 belonging to the State of Haryana driven by Surat Singh driver came from the side of Delhi at a high speed. A girl of about 5 years age, who was crossing the road, was run over by the bus and the driver of the bus lost complete control over the bus, which swerved towards the right side of the road and dashed against their car at a distance of 15 to 20 yards after striking against the girl. At that time, the car was on the extreme left side of the road. The width of the metalled road at that place was about 30 feet. As a result of this accident, Jagdish Parshad driver of the car, Lt. Col. Balbir Singh, his wife Harbans Kaur and his mother -in -law Prem Kaur received injuries. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh became unconscious as a result of those injuries and he regained consciousness after some time when the persons, who gathered there, were trying to take him out of the car. The driver Jagdish Parshad was jammed in the seat. All these injured persons were taken to the Bahadurgarh dispensary, where they were given first aid and thereafter they were taken to the Military Hospital, Delhi Cantt. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh remained under treatment in the Military Hospital, Delhi up to 9th October, 1968. Jagdish Parshad, the driver, died a short time after his reaching the Military Hospital. 3. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh filed claim application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the State of Haryana, Surat Singh driver and the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, for recovery of Rs. 1,25,000/ - as compensation. Harbans Kaur wife of Lt. Col. Balbir Singh filed a separate application under Section 110 -A of the Act for the recovery of Rs. 75,000/ - against the State of Haryana and others regarding the injuries sustained by her in the same accident. Prem Kaur wife of Shri Kishna Chand, Advocate, Delhi, filed a separate application against the State of Haryana and others for the recovery of Rs. 75,000/ - by way of compensation. Muni Devi, the widow of Jagdish Parshad driver and the children of Jagdish Parshad filed a separate petition for the recovery of Rs. 60,000/ - as compensation against the State of Haryana and others. 4. Notices in all these petitions were issued to the Respondents. Surat Singh driver did not file any written statement. The State of Haryana and the General Manager, Haryana Roadways filed a joint written statement, wherein they admitted the factum of the accident. However, they pleaded that Surat Singh driver of the bus was driving the bus at a low speed and near the place of occurrence, he took the bus on the right side of the road to save a minor girl, who was crossing the road on this point, but she struck against the rear part of the bus and died and the driver stopped the bus on the right side of the road and that in the meantime the car in question came from the opposite direction at a high speed and struck against the standing bus and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. These allegations were denied by the Petitioners in their replications.;