KAMLESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS court proposes to dispose of these three appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 214, 215 and 216 of 1984] by a common judgment as these pertain to the same accident and also arisen out of the common judgment dated 20.8.1984 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division at Dharamshala. In the accident in question jeep No. HIL 4824 and bus No. HPK 1589 were involved. Bus No. HPK 1589 was owned by New Prem Bus Service, the respondent No. 1 and driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, at the time of accident. It was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 3. The jeep No. HIL 4824 was owned by one of the claimants, Bishan Dass and was being driven by Kishori Lal at the time of accident.
(2.) IN the accident Bishan Dass and his daughter Sharda Devi, claimants, received injuries whereas Sheela Devi, wife of Bishan Dass died on the spot. Bishan Dass filed claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 7 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as the compensation. Sharda Devi filed separate claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 10 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 80,000 as compensation. The legal representatives of deceased Sheela Devi, namely, Bishan Dass, her husband, Sharda Devi, her daughter and Bipin Kumar, her son, filed another claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 11 of 1982 claiming Rs. 50,000/ as compensation. As per the allegations, made in their claim petitions, on 18.10.1981 at about 12.30 p.m. the claimants along with the deceased Sheela Devi were travelling in jeep No. HIL 4824 from Kangra to Nagrota Bagwan and when it entered Pathankot Mandi Road after crossing Tanda Sanitarium, at a point near 53 miles, bus No. HPK 1589 being driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, came at tremendous speed from Nagrota Bagwan side for going to Pathankot and struck with the jeep with a great force when it had covered 3/4th of the turn and pushed it to some distance. According to the claimants, the bus driver could see from a distance of 100 yards that the jeep was coming on the road from Tanda for going to Nagrota Bagwan, therefore, the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint reply whereas respondent No. 3 filed a separate reply to the claim petitions. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the allegations of negligence of the driver of the bus and according to them the accident had taken place due to negligence of the jeep. Their precise stand is: That there is a big tree at the point where Tanda Road joins the Mandi Pathankot Road on the left side while coming from Nagrota Bagwan and as such the Tanda Road is not visible to the driver of the vehicle coming from Nagrota Bagwan side and going to Pathankot side. If a vehicle is coming from Tanda side and if the same has to go towards Nagrota Bagwan side then at point where Tanda Road bifurcates from Mandi Pathankot Road, the motor vehicle has to cut a wrong side turn (i.e., right turn) and in order to cut a right turn, in that case the driver of the vehicle has to dead slow the vehicle in order to see the vehicle coming from his right side and then also give hand signal to that effect and then to take the turn. But in the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 had loaded an iron almirah weighing about 8 quintals which he was bringing from Kangra to his residence at Nagrota Bagwan by the aforesaid jeep No. HIL 4824 via Tanda and there were 8 persons including the deceased also sitting in the jeep. While coming from Tanda Road and at the point of entering the Mandi Pathankot Road, Kishori Lal neither slowed down the jeep nor blew any horn or gave any hand signal for taking the turn of his jeep towards his right side. In fact Kishori Lal was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and as such he could not take the turn and the jeep went straight towards the other end of the road and collided with bus No. HPK 1589. The respondent No. 2 who was coming from Nagrota Bagwan side due to a big tree on the road at point of bifurcation of Tanda Road from Mandi Pathankot Road did not observe any jeep coming from Tanda side. Moreover, the driver Kishori Lal neither blew horn nor gave any other kind of signal, therefore, respondent No. 2 could not observe the presence of jeep on the Mandi Pathankot Road for taking turn for going to Nagrota Bagwan. The respondent No. 2 was driving the bus at a normal speed. No sooner he saw the jeep had entered the main road towards the left side of the road, in order to avoid the collision, respondent No. 2 at once steered his bus towards his right side of the road so that the jeep could take its turn towards Nagrota Bagwan. But as the jeep HIL 4824 was loaded with iron almirah weighing about 8 quintals including 8 persons sitting in it (jeep) and the same was being driven at a high speed the jeep could not take its turn towards Nargota Bagwan side, i.e., towards right side and went straight towards the other side of the road and thus collided with the bus and thereby also caused damage to the bus to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ . Under the circumstances mentioned above, the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Kishori Lal, who has also been challaned under Sections 304 A, 279/338, Indian Penal Code, by the police of Police Station Kangra and the case is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangra.
(3.) SO far respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has mainly pleaded that the claim of compensation of the claimants is excessive and on the point of negligence it has towed the line of defence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed, which were common in all the three claim petitions: (1) Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2? OPP (2) Whether the petitioner's driver Kishori Lal is responsible for the present accident as he was driving the jeep which met with accident with the bus? OPR 1 (3) In case the petitioner proves issue No. 1, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP (4) Relief. ;