Hawa Singh vs Chand Kaur and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge here is to the award of a sum of Rs. 7,560/- as compensation to the widow and minor children of Chhotu, deceased, who was killed in an accident on the Jind-Assandh Road on December 19,1975.

Chhotu, deceased, was travelling on his camel cart when the Haryana Roadways bus HRJ 939 came from behind and hit into it. It was as a result of this accident that Chhotu died on the spot.

Mrs. Surjit Bindra, counsel for the bus driver sought to assail the finding of negligence recorded against the bus driver on the plea that the accident occurred at a time, when the bus was being driven at a slow speed at 30 to 40 kilometres per hour and that too on its correct side of the road. The argument being that the bus came and hit into the camel cart because of the dazzling head lights of a truck coming from the opposite direction. On the face of it, this is a wholly untenable contention. There is a duty of care which all road users owe to others thereon. In a situation like the one as emerged in this case, it was incumbent upon the bus driver to have stopped the bus there and then if for any reason his visibility was obstructed or impaired. In other words, if on account of the head lights of the truck he was not in a position to see the traffic going ahead, it provided no justification to the bus driver hitting into the camel cart going ahead. This thus does not give rise to an occasion warranting any interference in appeal with the finding of negligence recorded against the bus driver.

The only other point sought to be urged was with regard to the liability of the bus driver. It was sought to be argued that as this accident had been caused during the course of employment of the bus driver, only the owner of the bus could be held liable and not the driver. This is indeed a contention wholly devoid of merit. The person, who actually causes an accident would always be liable for the consequences thereof. If such accident happens to be caused by an employee during the course of his employment, it would only mean that in addition to the driver, the owner too, would be liable, but this cannot by any means, absolve the driver from liability.

There is thus no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 300/-