JUDGMENT
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is by the State of Punjab challenging award dated 29.7.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur qua claimant Dhanna Ram only (respondent herein).
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 14.10.1987, claimant-respondent Dhannu Ram boarded Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No. PBQ-4509 for going to his village Chandiani. In the said bus, claimant Neelam along with her mother Palwinder Kaur was also travelling. It is stated that the said bus, which was being driven by Major Singh driver was not being driven in a normal way and the said driver appeared to be in a drunken condition. It is further stated that generally the bus would not have slopped at Village Majri for a long time but on that date the driver stopped there for about 20 minutes and had liquor with some of his friends. Thereafter, he drove the bus and when the bus reached near the turn leading to Village Sahiba, a Swaraj Mazda four wheeler came from the opposite direction. As the driver of the bus could not control the bus so as to give sufficient space to the said four-wheeler to pass on, there was collusion between the two vehicles. It is stated that due to this mishap, claimants Dhannu Ram and Neelam lost their right arm at that point of time while certain passengers received injuries. It is thus, stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus by Major Singh driver.
3. As a result of the above accident, claimants Dhannu Ram and Neelam filed their respective claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Hoshiarpur, claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident.
4. Upon notice of the claim petitions, respondents therein field joint written statement and took up a preliminary objection that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as owner, driver and insurer of Swaraj Mazda had not been made parties. On merits, they stated that the bus in question was being driven at a normal speed and not rashly and negligently as alleged by the claimants.
5. On pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the Tribunal where after the parties led their respective evidence.
6. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the bus. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,200/- to claimant Dhannu Ram and Rs. 70,000/- to claimant Neelam alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till payment.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the State of Punjab has preferred the instant appeal.
8. It is not in dispute that Dhannu Ram and Neelam, claimants were travelling in bus bearing registration No. PBQ-4509 so driven by Major Singh, driver. It is also not in dispute that prior to the accident, the bus had started from bus stop of village Majri. The only argument of the learned State counsel is that Dhannu Ram and Neelam had protruded their right arms out of the window of the bus and were hit by four wheeler, i.e. Swaraj Mazda while crossing the bus and as such, there was no negligence on the pail of Major Singh, driver of the bus. The argument is mainly developed with reference to the statement of RW-1 Major Singh, driver, having taken the said plea. The argument in the light of the evidence adduced in this case is not sustainable. It is only the bald statement of RW-1 Major Singh. He says that he came to know that the said passengers taken their arms out of the window of the bus but without any explanation as to the source of information gathered by him. He while driving the bus would certainly not know that Dhannu Ram and Neelam had protruded their arms out of the window of the bus being busy while driving the bus. Otherwise also, it is no body’s case that Dhannu Ram and Neelam had protruded their arms out of the window of the bus. Statement of AW-4 Siri Ram, star witness in the case, as discussed in the award, suggests that when the bus reached at the turning of village Sahiba, the road was narrow. The four-wheeler coming from the opposite direction slowed down but the driver of the bus continued lo drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and while crossing the said four wheeler, look a brisk turn. This fact also stands corroborated from the statement of AW-6 Palwinder Kaur examined in Neelam’s case (as discussed in the award for which (here is no appeal by the State of Punjah) to the effect that her daughter Neelam was sitting in her lap and was having her arms inside the bus but due to sudden turn taken by the bus, her right arm flung out of the bus and got crushed. The tenor of statement of AW-4 Siri Ram also suggests that similarly had happened with the right arm of Dhannu Ram. Therefore, from the evidence adduced on record, it becomes abundantly clear that their arms flung out of the bus on account of sudden brisk turn of the bus by its. driver on seeing the oncoming four wheeler (Swaraj Mazda) from the opposite side. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that they were resting their arms on the widows, then also they cannot be held negligent since it is the duty of the driver of the bus to leave sufficient space while crossing another vehicle. In the instant case, it is evident from the statements of AW-4 Siri Ram, AW-5.Beant Singh and AW-6 Palwinder Kaur (in Neelam ‘s case) that as a matter of fact. Major Singh driver of the bus, had taken liquor at the bus stop of village Majri before he started the bus. It has also come in evidence that the road near village Sahiba, where the accident took place, was narrow. It was the bounden duty of the bus driver to have slowed down the bus but as evident from the statements of the above-said witnesses he continued driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. RW-1 Major Singh has admitted in cross-examination that there was Kacha portion on the either sides of the road may be 5′ to 6’ in width. He has admitted that when he noticed the oncoming vehicle, he had not swerved his vehicle to the extreme left side. Had Major Singh done so for the sake of safety of the passengers sitting in the bus, the accident could have been averted. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that the accident took place due to sole negligence of Major Singh, driver of the bus. The plea of the State counsel in this regard stands repelled.
9. No other argument has been raised.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.