Principal, New B.C.S. Sr. Sec. School and others vs Sharandeep Kaur and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Owners of school bus, who are respondents No. 4 to 6 before the Motor Accident Tribunal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short, the Tribunal), have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India impugning order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing application of petitioners herein for amendment of written statement.

Respondent No. 1-claimant has filed claim petition u/s 166of the Motor Vehicles Act against proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 herein (sons of late driver of the aforesaid bus) and against petitioners herein (owners of the bus) claiming compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in accident allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Claimant was pillion rider on motor cycle when the accident took place.

Petitioners by amendment of their written statement want to plead that Beant Pal Singh driver of the motor cycle was not holding legal, valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident and that the motor cycle was being driven in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and traffic Rules and that the accident had not taken place in the manner suggested by the claimants and in fact motor cycle driver lost control and hit electric pole. The said amendment has been disallowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.04.2011, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the proposed plea, if allowed to be taken and if proved, would depict contributory negligence of the motor cycle driver. The contention is misconceived. Claimant herself was not driver of the motor cycle and, therefore, the question of contributory negligence would not arise. At best, it could be composite negligence and in the case of composite negligence, aggrieved person can claim compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors jointly and severally. Consequently even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that driver of motor cycle was also negligent, even then claimant would have right to recover entire compensation amount from the driver and owner of the bus. Secondly, mere non-holding of driving license would not give rise to inference of any negligence on the part of motor cycle driver. Any such negligence on part of motor cycle driver has to be proved otherwise and not merely on the basis of non-holding of driving license by the said driver. As regards manner of accident, the same as pleaded by the claimant has already been denied in original written statement by the petitioners herein. Thus the proposed amendment sought by petitioners in their written statement is completely misconceived and has been rightly declined by the Tribunal.

For the reasons aforesaid, it is apparent that impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.