Nazakat Ali Hashmi vs Bhagwati Devi and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the owner u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 10.3.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in MAC Petition No. 4FT/2 of 2005/2004 whereby he allowed the Claim Petition awarding compensation of Rs. 71,000/- along with costs and interest in favour of the claimant but exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle, in question, was not insured and the name of the insurance company was ordered to be deleted.

The claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging that she suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HP-17-8670 owned by the Appellant and which was being driven at the relevant time by Respondent No. 3 herein.

The stand of the owner is that in fact, he owns two buses. According to the owner, the accident occurred while the claimant was traveling in bus No. HP-17-9786 and not with HP-17-8670. The learned Tribunal held that it was bus No. HP-17-8670 which was involved in the accident. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, if the accident had taken place with bus No. HP-17-9786, how was bus No. HP-17-8670 available at Shimla on the next morning, i.e., on the morning of 31.3.2004 for being taken to Paonta Sahib.

Sh. Javed Khan, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in fact, on the next day, i.e., 31.3.2004, the bus No. HP-17-8670 was coming from Paonta Sahib but near Kandaghat, since there was some defect with the other bus No. HP-17-9786, Respondent No. 3 drove back in the bus No. HP-17-8670. However, this fact is not stated in the affidavit of the owner. The owner in his reply has clearly stated that on 30.3.2004 bus No. HP-17-8670 came from Shimla to Paonta Sahib. If the said bus had reached Poanta Sahib at night and there was defect in the other bus, i.e., bus No. HP-17-9786, how could this bus have traveled back from Shimla in the morning hours on 31.3.2004.

It is in the affidavit of the driver himself that the bus No. HP-17-8670 was impounded near Solan while going from Shimla towards Poanta Sahib.

It is also not disputed that though the bus was got released, no effort was made to show at the relevant time that bus No. HP-17-8670 was not involved in the accident. The owner has not cared to produce the log books of both the buses. He has also not cared to bring on record the time table and route permits of the buses. Though it is alleged that there was some defect in bus No. HP-17-9786 and, therefore, bus No. HP-17-8670 had to be taken back from Shimla to Paonta Sahib there is not a shred of evidence with regard to the defect in the bus.

As per Appellant-Respondent No. 1, bus No. HP-17-8670 was not involved in the accident and this bus started its journey from Shimla to Paonta Sahib on 30.3.2004 at 8.40 a.m. and reached Poanta Sahib at 3.30 p.m. and no accident took place with the same. Bus No. HP-17-9786 started its journey from Paonta Sahib to Shimla on the same day, i.e., 30.3.2004 at 11.00 a.m. and reached Shimla at about 6.00 p.m. According to the Appellant-Respondent No. 1, next day, i.e., 31.3.2004 when bus No. HP-17-8670 reached Kumarhatti, it was impounded by the police in connection with the accident wrongly and falsely despite requests not to impound the bus. In his reply, there was no mention of any bus being changed. Therefore, the case of the Appellant is that it was bus No. HP-17-8670 which was coming from Poanta Sahib was impounded near Kumarhatti, but this is not borne out from the record. It is apparent from the record that the bus which was impounded was traveling from Shimla to Paonta Sahib on 31.3.2004.

Faced with this situation, the driver came out with another false story that in fact, he started journey on the morning from Shimla to Paonta Sahib in bus No. HP-17-9786 but on the way near Kandaghat, his bus developed a defect and, therefore, on the advice of the owner, he shifted to bus No. HP-17-8670 and this bus was changed and was taken towards Poanta Sahib. This explanation on the face of it is false because no basis for this explanation is there in the written statement. It is obvious that the owner is trying to shift the burden to the Insurance Company since bus No. HP-17-8670 was not insured.

Further as noted by the learned Tribunal, according to the owner, he came to know about the alleged accident only after the bus had been impounded but the conductor who appeared as PW/3 has given a totally different version. According to PW/3, after the bus reached Shimla on 30.3.2004, he had informed the owner of the bus that the accident had taken place on that date itself.

Initially, bus number given in the FIR is HP-17-8670. Why should a false number have been given in the FIR itself? When the bus was impounded, no effort was made to claim that the other bus was involved. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in holding that it was bus No. HP-17-8670 which was involved in the accident. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

Since the appeal has been dismissed, the entire amount along with interest be released in favour of the claimant by remitting the same in her Bank Account, details whereof have been given in the application. The application stands disposed of.