KALAWATI AND OTHERS Vs. NALAGARH DEHATI COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD , NALAGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of a single judgment disposing of four separate applications registered as M.A.C No. 37-S/2, 36-S/2, 33-S/2 and 35-S/2, of 1968 filed by different claimants for compensation on account of the deaths of their relations in a bus accident which occurred on the 10th of Sept., 1968 at about 8.30 a.m near Jandu. As all these applications have been decided by a single judgment, therefore all these appeals which arise out of the same accident shall also be disposed of by a single judgment.

(2.) Sohan Lal husband of Leela Devi, Sudama husband of Kalwati, Devi Dass husband of Parwatu, and Phimpru husband of Nardo and Darshanoo met their deaths in the accident. They were travelling in bus No. PNT 3195 belonging to the Nalagarh Dehati Co operative Transport Society Ltd , Nalagarh and it was driven by Mr. Labhu Ram. This bus was going from Dighal to Nalagarh because there was some fair on that day. The dependants filed their claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Simla Mrs. Leela Devi and her children claimed a compensation of Rs 50,000.00 on account of the death of Mr. Sohan Lal and it was stated in the claim petitions-that the bus was over crowded and the kacha retaining wall at the site of the accident gave way resulting in the accident Mrs. Kalawati claimed an amount of Rs, 5,000.00 by way of compensation and in the petition the cause of the accident as given above. In respect of its liability it was contended that its liability was limited to Rs 2,000.00 per passenger subject to a maximum of Rs 20,000.00 for all the passengers.

(3.) The owner of the vehicle i.e. The Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative. Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh took the pleas that the maintenance and up-keep of the retaining wall was the responsibility of the H.P. Public Works Department and the defect, if any, in the retaining wall could not be foreseen by the driver and there has been no negligence on the part of the driver and the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh be impleaded as a party.