Jitender v. Dharambir Singh And Others
!"
#$
"%&'&#()
&!"(*"+
,,,,,,--".. (!
/',
0 + 12&+ 3&(40 (* #!0"+'
,,,,,,"'-#(*"(!'
) 5 6 3, 3 3 3
! "#
$ % &
$ '()
* +# (((( 3 3
,
6 % ,
- +
%--
.
%//,#
*+, "0
1 ,23 + ,# 4 +
+ + 3
3 ,
+ + &
& (5 (6+ 7 5
+ , , $ "8( 9( /% # " ,# ( , '&
+"#8 #,, $ "8(&(/&&
7 # ,7
, (
+ : 6+ 7
: ,#+ & ;
+ # # +
4
+ ' 9 +
, +
(
1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No. HR 8330 by respondent No.1 Dharmbir Singh in MACT Case No. 73 of 2003? OPP.
2. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No. HR 8330 by respondent No.1 Dharambir Singh or by Maruti Car bearing No.HR 20E 9081 by petitioner respondent No.5 Jitender? OPP.
3. Whether the petitioner of MACT case No.73 of 2003 is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, if so how much and from whom? OPP.
4. Whether the petitioner of MACT Case No. 121 of 2003 is entitled to compensation on account of death of Om Parkash, if so how much and from whom? OPP.
5. Relief.
7
, + +( "
+4
+
3 333 6
363 3 - <
+
,# +
,#
,# =
%
"
,
+ + "
#
+ > Per contra, <*
+ #,
+ ,# <,
#
+
/ )
,# < ,
( "Issue No.1
7. The claimant had examined Amit Sharma PW4 Ahlmad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, who brought the file relating to case titled
and proved the copy of the FIR Ex. P4 and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He stated that the charge had been framed against Dharambir on 25.8.2003. The claimant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW5/A and gave the same statement as revealed in the claim petition. It was stated that the Haryana Roadways Bus overtook his car and then applied brakes and the car went under the bus and the claimant sustained injuries. It was also stated that the accident was witnessed by his father Hari Charan, who was returning on his scooter. It was also stated that an FIR was registered against respondent No.1 on the same day. Hari Charan PW6 tendered in
evidence his affidavit Ex. PW6. A supporting his son's statement. He stated that his son was ahead of him by about 200/300 meters. He stated that he was driving the scooter at the speed of 30 Km. P.H and the bus was driven at the speed of 50/60 Km. Р.Н. He could not tell the portion of the bus, the car had struck. He then stated that the major portion of the left side of the car had struck behind the bus. He stated that 10/15 passengers were inside the bus. He also stated that the police had taken the injured to the hospital.
8.
It may be mentioned here that another claim petition had been filed seeking compensation for the death of Om Parkash. The claim petition was filed by Chander Kalan sister of the deceased but that claim petition was withdrawn on 10.1.2006. The statement of Chander Kalan PW7 is, therefore, not relevant as she is not eye witness.
9.
The respondents had summoned the Ahlmad, who was examined as RW1, who brought the file and proved the report of the mechanic and the site plan Ex.R3 to Ex.R5. He stated that there were six photographs on the file and Ex.R6 and Ex. R11 were its photocopies. Dhraminder RW2 stated that he was driver on the bus and had started from Delhi for Hanumangarh and at 3.50 p.m. he had reached near the Airport Road on Hisar bye pass when the bus developed a fault and he took the bus on the left side of the road and placed stones on both sides of the bus and the passengers got down and he went back to the work shop and the Officer on duty gave him another bus and he left for Hanumangarh with the passenger at 4.30 p.m. and the accident had not taken place and he had been falsely implicated. He stated that he had informed the General Manager, who had written a D.O. letter to Superintendent of Police, Hisar. He introduced in evidence the copy of the letter Mark D and photocopy of the Yard Master Register Mark E. He admitted that he was facing trial.
10.
Satbir Singh Yard Master brought the Duty register in which the entry was made with respect to the buses leaving Hisar Depot. He stated that the bus No. HR 8330 left Hisar at 6.20 a.m. and Dharambir was the driver and it was bound for Delhi and the bus did not reach Hisar and another bus No.HR 8361 was given to Dharambir for Hanumangarh at 4.30 p.m. and the entry in this regard was made in the register at Sr. No. 123. He proved the copies Ex.R13 and Ex.R14. He stated that this register was maintained in the regular course of duty and entries were in a serial.
11.
Sajjan Singh Conductor RW4 stated that he was a conductor on the bus No. HR 8330 and they were on return journey when the bus broke down on the Hisar Hansi bye pass and the bus was parked on the kacha portion and they requested the passengers to get down and took another bus for the bus stand and he along with the driver went to the Duty Inspector and another bus was given to them and they had taken the passengers on Bus No. HR 8361 at 4.30 p.m. and no accident had taken place and the accident was caused with a stationary bus.
12.
Suraj Bhan Sub Inspector RW5 brought the summoned letter written on 25.2.2003 by General Manager Haryana Roadways to Superintendent of Police, Hisar seeking cancellation of the FIR. He identified the signatures of G.M and proved its copy Ex. R15. 13.
The case put forward by the claimant was that the offending bus overtook his car and then the driver suddenly applied brakes and there was no time to apply brakes and the claimant's car struck against the bus and the claimant sustained injuries. It is his case that his father was coming on a scooter behind him and was an eye witness to the accident.
14.
On the other hand the position taken by the respondent was that the bus had developed a fault and it was stationary and had been parked on the left side of the road and the car struck behind
the bus. They had led evidence to show that the driver on this bus was given another duty and he had left for Hanumangarh at 4.30 p.m. Since the FIR had been registered on the statement of the claimant, the matter was reported to the General Manager, who in turn wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar seeking cancellation of the FIR. Those letters were produced on record. 15.
It was urged on behalf of the respondent that Hari Charan was not present on the spot and he was not an eye witness and his son has been injured in the accident he would have been the person, who would have taken his son to the hospital and the MLR shows that the injured was brought to the hospital by the police. A perusal of the MLR Ex. P3 shows that Jitender was brought to the hospital at 5.10 p.m. by Balbir Singh ASI of Traffic Police. The presence of Hari Charan is doubtful.
16.
The car had struck behind the bus and it is now to be seen from the evidence available on record as to in what manner the accident had occurred. The record produced by the respondents who stated that this bus had left Hisar at 6.20 p.m. with Dharambir as its driver and the bus was bound for Delhi. Another bus was given to Dharambir at 4.30 p.m. for Hanumangarh. According to the claimant the accident took place at 4.30 p.m. The driver had left the Yard along with another bus at 4.30 p.m., therefore, the version given by the claimant is false. The photocopies of the photographs available in the criminal file were produced, which show that one tyre is on the kacha portion. The mechanical report of the bus shows that the right side Bumper has been broken and rest of the bus body was clear.
The mechanical report of the car shows that from portion of the car is smashed. The portion below the bumper is not affected. The number plate and the tyres and intact, which goes to show that the car went under the bus.
place. It cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence as the accident occurred during the day. Half of the bus body was on the kacha portion. It is not the case of the claimant that the bus was standing in the middle of the road. The driver was not vigilant. It appears that he had not seen the bus and dashed into the rear portion of the bus. The accident clearly is on account of his own fault. It is held that the accident occurred on account of his own negligence. The issue is answered against the claimant." %
+ , # + + ,#
+4 (5 ,
$ %( !+, %%
=+ + ?
@= ?
4 + + + 9 "* =+
?- , # (
?-("* + # , (5
=+ #
&
+
"
< 8 0@=
&3 , ,# )A, ,#"*( ?- # ,
?-("*
% 9 + =+ 8?% ,
+
+
+
0@=8& 8 3
0@=8-
8%%3!+,
, =+ 8?
, +
8 ",# &
+!
7 ,
( 7
, 7 ,'& +
"+ 8?( !+, #
+, ,
#+ )
07!3 ,# "#8 #
"
7
9)8 ,
#
B 28 07@3
%& B ( , =+ 8?& , !#8
+ ,$ "8(&(/&&
"-
!+, ,
!
6
+
, '& + ,, $ "8(&(/&-% !+,
@
,#8?&( , @=8%&@=8%' , +
# + ,# %'
8?(!+,
, ,#8?'( ::
,$ "8(&(/&& "
+ , 7
( 7
C +,7 + , '& +
+ :
#8?'( :: #
, + " + #
,
,
+#
+ #
8?
( :A ,()
,
#
&0@=8% 3 ,#
7
9)8 ,
+ %
+
, + ( ,+ # +
+ +
# +, 7
+ +
#
,:
+ ,#,7 7 %-
+ , 7
, # 7
, + 4 +
#
,
, 7 +
#
%> )
, #
(5 ,
$ %(!+, 0 3 +
8?(!+, 0 3 8?&( , 0B 3 8?'( :: 0* 3
, # ,#
+
+ #
%/
# * +#
,# ,
- + ,#
+ ,
#+ + %
03 #
3 3
? 74 4$
? , 4$