IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.352 of 1996
Date of decision: 8.12.2008
Tehal Singh and another ......Appellants
Versus
Parghat Singh and others ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. PJS Sullar, AAG, Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This is claimant’s appeal challenging the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra whereby the Tribunal held that the
accident in question resulting into the death of Paramjit Singh, was
caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-07-2805 by its
driver Parghat Singh-respondent No.1 to the extent of 67 percent and due
to the own negligence and carelessness of deceased to the extent of 33
per cent. The appellants have also challenged the determination of total
compensation at Rs.75,000/- being inadequate and have further claimed
enhancement of compensation.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants
that in this case, admittedly, the deceased-Paramjit Singh was standing
inside the bus and he fell down from the front window which got opened
due to jerk caused to the bus because of rash and negligent driving by
respondent No.1-Parghat Singh and therefore, the Tribunal was wrong
while fixing the liability of the deceased to the extent of 33 per cent on the
basis of contributory negligence. In support of his case, learned counsel
has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurmeet Kaur and
five others v. Punjab Roadways Ferozepur and others 2006(4) RCR
(Civil) 63 wherein it has been held that if a passenger standing with the
FAO No.352 of 1996 -2-
door falls out of the bus on opening of the door the passenger cannot be
held responsible, negligent and it will be the negligence of the bus.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
appearing on behalf of the State, was unable to controvert the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants from the record of the case.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the findings of
the Tribunal on issue No.1 to the effect where deceased Paramjit Singh
has been held to be negligent to the extent of 33 per cent are set aside and
it is held that Paramjit Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of bus
No. HR-07-2805 by its driver Parghat Singh-respondent No.1.
It may also be pointed out that the learned counsel for the
appellants was unable to point out any illegality with regard to the
determination of compensation at Rs.75,000/-. Since as a result of my
finding on issue No.1, it has been held that Paramjit Singh died due to rash
and negligent driving of bus driver, the claimant-appellants will be entitled
to the total amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest as granted by the
Tribunal
Thus, the appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above.
December 8, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE