M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This appeal filed by the claimant-appellants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ambala (for brevity 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 6.3.1987. The claimants in appeal are father of the deceased unmarried major and minor sisters minor brother step-mother and a step brother.
(2.) It is conceded position that Deepak Kumar Gupta who was 17 years of age was studying in the 1st year B.E. (Mechanical) at the Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh. It is also accepted and proved before the Tribunal that his death was caused on 26.8.1986 at about 4.30 p.m. at Patiala Chowk House Ambala City on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.HRV-2762 by the driver Munshi Ram (respondent No. 1). The deceased Deepak Kumar Gupta was knocked down who was coming on a cycle. He succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in Philadelphia Hospital Ambala on 26.8.1986 soon after the accident. The Tribunal has rejected the plea of the respondents imputing contributory negligence to the deceased and theory of stationary bus belonging to Kaithal Depot of the Haryana Roadways has been discarded in the following words: 8. ...If any bus of Kaithal depot was standing there and dropping passengers then the above fact could be proved by producing that bus driver or the conductor who were members of the crew of that bus. Secondly there was no mention of the other bus standing there in the FIR Ex.AI. Thirdly the respondent No. 1 appearing as RW 1 admitted that they were not to drop any passenger there in that chowk. Fourthly the accident was attributed to tilting of the cycle with all of a sudden alighting from it of Pardip Aggarwal who was sitting on the carrier of the cycle. This is a case of hitting the cyclist from behind. There is positive evidence of AW 3 Pardip Aggarwal that seeing the offending bus coming rashly and driven negligently he had jumped side. In that case the bus was just in the proximity and the PW 3 probably sensing that the bus driver would hit the cycle saved himself by jumping aside. The situation of the place of accident was such that from GT Road the turning was towards Ambala City and the speed of the bus was supposed to be very slow but unfortunately it was not. It was required to be further slow if the respondent's story was believed that a Kaithal roadways depot bus was already parked there for the purpose of dropping the passengers. The law was clear that the driver of a vehicle was required to keep its speed within control and to avoid dashing against a person not stepping of the road as held in State of Kerala v. Rama Swamy lyyer 1960 Kerala Law Times 769. Moreover the alighting from the cycle of Pardip Aggarwal would have enabled the deceased Deepak Gupta to have better control of the cycle. It also cannot be believed that the surprise alighting from the cycle could give a jerk or tilt it as the cycle is such in structure that a person witting on the carrier without imbalancing the cyclist can alight from it. Therefore the respondent's defence is not appealing to logic that on account of the sudden alight of Pardip Aggarwal from the carrier of the cycle had jolted the cycle and then the cyclist had fallen in front of the bus.
(3.) The Tribunal has further held that the father of the deceased alone was entitled to make a claim because others could not be regarded as the LRs of the deceased Deepak Kumar Gupta. For the aforementioned purpose the Tribunal has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Parkash Chand and Ors. v. Pal Singh and Ors. (1985-1) 87 P.L.R. 538.;