MANDI KULU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIN Vs. JANAK RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Older dated 27th August, 1906 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh, under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) awarding damages to the respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 and his wife were passengers in Bus No. 2357 belonging to the appellant and driven by its employee respondent. No. 2. On the 27th June, 1963, the bus was going from Kulu toPathankot. The bus was travelling from Kulu to Pathankot when it sufferred an accident in which the respondent No. 1 and his wife were injured. The respondent No. 1 and his wife made two applications for compensation under section 110 A of the Act. These applications were the basis of the claim for compensation made by the respondent No. 1 and his wife. Under the heading "Cause of accident with brief description", respondent No. 1 and his wife simply stated as follows :-

(3.) In the written statement before the Tribunal the appellant and respondent No. 2 pointed out that the accident was not due to any wrongful act or negligence on their part. "The vehicle had been properly checked before it was pot on road on that day. There was no perceiv. able defect in the vehicle and it was in good condition. If it was not so, the vehicle would not have covered a distance of aboat 80 miles from its start. The stub axle of the vehicle which is a delicate part of the steering machanisam suddenly developed certain mechanical defect, which resulted in the accident. The presence of mind and the cleverness of the driver averted a major and serious accident, which would be apparent from the remarks of the petitioner which be made in the Complaint Book just after the accident, a copy of those remarks is attached herewith. Had the stub axle been defective from the very start, thbus would not have travelled a distance of about 80 miles from its start and this defect would have easily been noticed by the driver. This clearly shows that the accident was not due to any wrongful act or negligence either on the part of the driver or any other employees of the Corporation." The appellant and respondent No. 2 appended to their written statement the following remarks made by respondent No. 1, Sbri J. S Madan in the Complaint Book kept with the bus : -