Narain Dass Khanna vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.—The Appellant who is the father of Kanwal Kanta, who died in a motor accident on 16.8.1966, filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, claiming damages under the Motor Vehicles Act. His case was that when Kanwal Kanta and two other girls Chander Kanta and Amarjit Kaur were walking on the footpath of the road leading towards the General Hospital, a bus driven by the third Respondent, which was driven rashly and negligently, went on the footpath and ran over Kanwal Kanta and killed her. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident was the result of a mechanical defect, namely, leakage of brake fluid and not the result of any negligence on the part of the driver. This finding is attacked in this appeal.

The undoubted fact is that the bus left the road, went on the footpath and ran over the victim. The burden was clearly and squarely on the Respondents to explain how the bus came to leave the road and go on the footpath. The basis for the conclusion of Tribunal was the evidence of R.W. 2, a mechanic who took the bus from the police station a day after the occurrence. He deposed that after taking the bus from the police station, he examined it and found that the brake-fluid pipe of the front right side was leaking. According to him, if the pipe on the right side was leaking and brakes were applied, the vehicle would be dragged towards the left. In cross-examination, he admitted that he made no report in writing after examining the bus in question. He also admitted that though the pipe had cracked, some oil was still in the pipe. I do not think the Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on such vague oral evidence. The evidence of the witness might have been entitled to some weight had there been a contemporaneous report mentioning that the brake fluid pipe was leaking. The driver of the vehicle who was examined as R.W. 1 stated that the brake fluid pipe had leaked and that was why the brake pedal did not function. He stated that the bus was then moving in the second gear and at a slow speed as he had just taken a turn. According to him, the bus was pulled toward the left side because of the leakage of brake fluid pipe. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the bus was taken out from the workshop in the morning, a clearance certificate had been obtained from a mechanic. He also admitted that he had applied brakes shortly before the occurrence and at that time they were working properly. He stated that he had put the bus in the second gear at a distance of about 15 feet from the turning. P.W. 1 was the police constable who reached the scene of occurrence first. He stated that the left front wheel of the bus was on the footpath while the right front wheel was on the road. He did not say a word about finding any oil on the road. P.W. 2 was the photographer who took the photographs of the scene. He stated in cross-examination that previously he had stated that there were skid marks on the road. P.W. 8 was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who went to the scene of accident soon after the occurrence. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember whether there was any mobile oil on the road which had leaked from the bus. P.W. 5 Amarjit Kaur, P.W. 6, Kirpal Singh and P.W. 7 Chander Kanta deposed to the manner in which the accident took place. Kirpal Singh, a senior compositor in the Government Press, stated that the bus came very fast. P.W. 7 also stated that the bus came very fast. From the evidence, it is clear that the bus was moving very fast and the driver being unable to take a turn properly because of the speed went on to the footpath and ran over the girl. If the vehicle was moving slowly and in the second gear, even if the brakes had failed the driver would still have been in a position to prevent the vehicle from going on the foot path by proper use of the steering wheel. It is impossible to accept the story that that in spite of the fact that the vehicle was in the second gear and was moving slowly, the vehicle left the road and went on to the footpath because of the leakage of the brake fluid pipe. The skid marks noticed by P.W. 2 also indicate that the brakes must have been functioning. I, therefore, hold that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and that was the reason for the accident.

In regard to damages, the evidence of the father of the girl was to the effect that the girl was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident, that she was working as a private teacher and also used to do tailoring. As it was she was giving Rs. 50/- per month to him out of her income and on the completion of her training in the Industrial Training Institute, she would have started at Rs. 120/- per month and she may have gone upto Rs. 500/- per month. The Tribunal held that the father would have to spend Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on her marriage and after marriage she may not have given anything to her parents. On this basis, the Tribunal thought that the claimant would be entitled if at all to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- only. I do not think that the Tribunal was justified in taking into account the circumstance that the father might have to spend some amount on the marriage of the girl in assessing the compensation to be paid to him. Taking a broad view of all the circumstances, including her future prospects, I think the compensation of Rs. 12,000/- might reasonably be awarded to the claimant.

In the result, the appeal in allowed with costs. The Appellant will have a decree for Rs. 12,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 11.2.1970.