- (1.) THE matter here concerns the award of Rs. 33,400/- as compensation to the widow, children and father of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased, who was killed when the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation bus PUV 2370, he was travelling in, was involved in a head-on collision with another bus of the same Corporation, PUC 3148 coming from the opposite direction. This accident occurred on August 2, 1980 on the Faridkot-Kot Kapura Road. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the two buses involved in the accident.
(2.) IN seeking to assail the finding on the issue of negligence, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation put forth the plea that the accident had been caused "due to unforeseen mechanical defect which occurred due to some fault in bus PUC 3148 for which the driver concerned cannot be held at fault". This plea has been reproduced from the written statement filed on behalf of the Corporation. It would be pertinent to note that there was no mention there of what this "unforeseen mechanical defect" was.
(3.) TURNING now to the evidence led on behalf of the Corporation to support this plea of mechanical defect of the bus being the cause of the accident, it came for the first time in the testimony of RW 2, Channan Singh, the driver of the bus PUC 3148 what this defect in fact was. He stated it to be breaking of the spring leaf of the bus. He went on to add, however, that he did not know if his bus had been inspected by any mechanic. RW 3, Faqir Chand, a clerk, brought the registration certificate of this bus and deposed that according to it, this bus was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on August 21, 1979 and he had given a fitness certificate for it upto August 20,1980. The main testimony is that of RW 4, Mohan Singh, Head Mechanic, who stated that according to the Progress Register of buses, the bus PUC 3148 came to the workshop on August 8,1980 and he changed the right rear side leaf of the bus which was broken and that, at the time of repairs, he had made a general check of the bus. As regards this register, it is worthy of note that he was constrained to admit in cross-examination that its pages were not marked, nor did it bear any certificate of any officer. There was also no note in this register that any general check of the bus had been made by him.;