Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Gurdial Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns the award of Rs. 86,000/- as compensation to the parents and sister of Jang Singh deceased, who was killed when, while driving his scooter, he went and hit against the stationary bus of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, PBP 3554. This happened on the Patiala-Sangrur Road at about 9 p.m. on October 2, 1982.

According to the claimants, the bus was wrongly parked on the metalled road without any parking light or other indication, when Jang Singh deceased along with his friends Kuldip Singh and Bimaljit Singh came there on his scooter and hit into it. It was said that on account of it being pitch-dark and there being no indication of the bus being parked there, the deceased could not anticipate or see it and thus ran into it.

The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, on its part, controverted the claimants'' version by asserting that the bus was in fact parked on the kacha portion of the road and that the parking lights on both sides were on and were visible to every passer-by. The accident, it was said, occurred on account of the fast and negligent driving of the deceased. It was also mentioned in the return that Bimaljit Singh, one of the persons on the scooter with the deceased, at that time, had made a statement to the police that there was no fault of the bus driver for this accident and consequently no case had been registered against him.

The case of the claimants rests solely upon the testimony of PW 1, Gurdeep Singh who deposed that he along with Bimaljit Singh were on the scooter of Jang Singh when this accident occurred. According to him the bus was, at that time, standing on the metalled road with no parking lights or other indication of it being there.

To counter this, there is the testimony of RW 2, Mukhtiar Singh, the driver of the bus who deposed that when he reached near village Charnon while travelling on the Chandigarh-Sirsa route, a defect occurred in the brakes of the bus on account of which, he parked the bus on the kacha portion of the road in front of the Gurdwara. He specifically stated that the bus was not parked on the road and added that the road was wide enough to enable two vehicles to pass. It was his testimony that he put on the parking lights after he had parked the bus before going to his head office to inform the authorities.

Reliance was also placed on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation upon the roznamcha report Exh. R-1 regarding the statement of Bimaljit Singh, one of the companions of the deceased at the time of the accident, to the effect that there was no fault of the driver of the bus, for this accident.

It will be seen that the evidence brought on record by the parties relating to the place where the bus was parked and whether or not there was any indication of it being parked there, is founded upon merely the oral testimony of two witnesses making conflicting statements. The conspicuous feature of the evidence of the only witness examined by the claimants, namely, PW 1 Gurdeep Singh is that no explanation is forthcoming to account for deceased''s inability to avoid hitting the stationary bus. As is well-known, the scooter too has a headlight and even if the bus was parked on the road, it should have been visible to the deceased by the light of the scooter''s headlight and he could thereafter have applied the brakes or at any rate, tried to avoid it by going around it. There is no hint even in the testimony of Gurdeep Singh that the deceased did anything in this direction. Further, of material significance here is the total absence of any suggestion that there was any traffic on the road or other obstruction to the vision of the deceased, like blinding headlight of an on-coming vehicle that could have prevented him from seeing the bus.

It is also noteworthy that the claimants have not cared to produce on record any photographs of the place of occurrence or any site plan prepared by the police or anything else to show the position of the bus at the time of the accident.

There is also a duty of care which a road-user owes to himself to avoid harm or injury by taking such action or steps that a reasonably prudent man would be expected to take in the circumstances to protect himself. The breach of such a duty on the part of the deceased is clearly writ large.

In so far as the bus driver is concerned, his testimony to the contrary, namely, that the bus was parked on the kacha portion of the road with parking lights on finds corroboration from the roznamcha report Exh. R-l on the statement of Bimaljit Singh absolving him from blame for the accident.

Such being the circumstances, the claimants cannot be held entitled to any compensation other than that payable to them u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is hereby dismissed while that of the Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. must be accepted.

An appeal had also been preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation seeking to challenge the award of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Counsel, however, failed to show how the award of this amount was in any manner contrary to law. This award must consequently be upheld and this appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.