Dismissed

Tajwinder Kaur @ Guddi and Ors. v. Punjab State Thr Collector Faridkot etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2024FAO/1113/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against a common MACT award holding the bus driver not negligent; accident attributed to an unregistered, unbounded peter rehra carrying humans, a buffalo and calf. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's findings and dismissed all appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tajwinder Kaur @ Guddi and Ors. Vs Punjab… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) and Connected matters -1- 2024:PHHC:058625

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

118

¶4

¶5

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) Date of Decision : 29.4.2024

¶6

Tejwinder Kaur alias Guddi (deceased) through LRs ..... Appellants versus

¶7

Punjab State and others ..... Respondents

¶8

2. FAO No.1248 of 1989 2024:PHHC:058713 Sewak Singh (deceased) through LRs ..... Appellant versus Punjab State and others ..... Respondents

¶9

3. FAO No.1113 of 1989 ��

¶10

Tejwinder Kaur alias Guddi (deceased) through LRs and others

¶11

..... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

Punjab State and others ..... Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶15

Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate, for the appellants/claimants Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab

¶16

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

¶17

The aforementioned three appeals have been filed against a common award/order dated 1.3.1989, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short ‘the Tribunal’), holding that the respondents had not been negligent in causing the accident in question, and the appellants/claimants were only entitled to payment of limited

¶18

Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.07 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) and Connected matters -2- 2024:PHHC:058625

¶20

compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short ‘the Act of 1939’), under ‘No Fault Theory’.

¶21

Briefly, as per facts on record, on 26.7.1987, deceased Jaspal

¶22

Singh along with his wife Tejwinder Kaur and son Gursewak Singh was going from village Panniwala to village Madhir on a cart driven with engine, known as ‘peter rehra ’ (in short ‘the rehra ’). A buffalo and a calf were also on the rehra . When they reached near village Panniwala, a bus belonging to the respondent-Corporation, driven by the third respondent, came from opposite side. The rehra and the bus met with an accident, in which Jaspal Singh, one Boota Singh (driver of the rehra ), the buffalo and the calf died on the spot, teeth of the claimant Tejwinder Kaur wife of Jaspal Singh were broken and Gursewak Singh son of Jaspal Singh suffered a fracture of right thigh.

¶23

2.1. The claim applications filed on their behalf were decided by the impugned common award on the following issues:

¶24

Whether Jaspal Singh died due to rash and negligent driving by Sohan Lal driver of bus no.PBF-8564 on 26.7.1987? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the LRs of deceased Jaspal Singh and entitled to get compensation? OPP

¶25

Whether Tajwinder Kaur claimant received injuries in accident with bus no.PBF-8564 driven by Sohan Lal driver rashly and negligently on 26.7.1987? OPP

¶26

Whether Sewak Singh claimant received injuries in accident with bus no.PBF-8564 being driven by Sohan Lal driver rashly and negligently on 26.7.1987? OPP

¶27

From which of the respondents, the claimants are entitled to get compensation and if so, to what extent? OPP

¶28

2.2. While deciding Issues no.1, 3 and 4, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record concluded that the rehra was an

¶29

Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.07 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) and Connected matters -3- 2024:PHHC:058625

¶31

unauthorised vehicle made by the villagers ‘which only had a platform without any boundary’. Driving of such a vehicle on road was dangerous, more so with a buffalo and a calf on it which would make it lose balance. Accordingly, the accident was caused due to negligence of the rehra driver. It has also been concluded that the bus was being driven on a slow speed since its ‘leaf spring’ which absorbs shocks had broken down. It has also been held that the driver of rehra was not having any valid driving licence, and was driving it unauthorisedly. The relevant findings of the

¶32

Tribunal read as under:

¶33

Moreover, it is not proved on the file that Boota Singh was having a valid driving licence which means that he was driving the Peter rehra unauthorisedly. The Peter rehra is unauthorised type of vehicle and it dangerous to ply the same on road. So, it appears that the accident took place to the negligence of Boota Singh driver of the Peter rehra as it became out of control with the moving of the buffalo in it. This fact does not affect the case if the leave spring of the bus was broken. It is stated by Sohan Lal respondent that the leaf spring of the bus observes the shock of the road. When the leaf spring of the bus was broken that means Sohan Lal was driving the bus slowly and carefully.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimants argued that from the site plan Ex.A-10, it is clear that the bus went to wrong side. But when the case of accident is made against respondent Sohan Lal, the police will naturally prepare that site plan showing the negligence of the driver of the bus. When the evidence has come on record, then we have to consider it independently that with which negligence the accident took place. Moreover, no suggestion was given to Sohan Lal respondent that the buffalo and calf did not move and the rehra was going properly. By taking the buffalo and calf in the rehra is dangerous and the rehra cannot move properly because the cattle will become frightened with the noise of the coming vehicle and it appears to me that in this case, the rehra went out of control of its driver when the cattle moved in the rehra on seeing the bus which

¶35

Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.07 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) and Connected matters -4- 2024:PHHC:058625

¶37

means the accident took place with the negligence of the driver of the Peter rehra and not of the driver of the bus. No doubt, if a person is not having a driving licence, then it cannot be said that he was negligent, but in this case when the driver of the Peter rehra was not having any driving licence and moving properly as it was carrying buffalo and calf and the cattle become frightened with the noise of the coming bus, so it was negligence of Boota Singh driver of the peter rehra, by whom the accident was caused and not of the driver of the bus…

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Nor could he dispute the facts that rehra was unauthorised vehicle, locally assembled which was not allowed to be plied along the road, and that the driver had no licence to drive the same. His contention that the bus was damaged as a part of its steering-wheel had broken down, and was being driven in a dangerous manner which caused the accident, is not established by any material on record. Rather, evidence is to the contrary that on account of ‘leaf spring’ of the bus being broken, it was being driven very carefully at a slow speed.

¶39

The claim of learned counsel for the appellants that it is akin to a motorised cart know as jugaad, remains substantiated. Besides, the jugaad has already been termed a menace by the Supreme Court in Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Santosh and others, (2013) 7 SCC 94, wherein directions were issued to the authorities concerned to ensure registration of such jugaads under the Act; and that its driver must have a valid driving licence, etc. so that liability under the Act for an accident might be properly determined.

¶40

The rehra , on which the deceased, the claimants, a buffalo and

¶41

Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.07 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

FAO No.1114 of 1989 (O & M) and Connected matters -5- 2024:PHHC:058625

¶43

a calf were travelling, was an unauthorised assemblage of an engine and a cart without boundaries, which could hardly be termed a vehicle defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was neither registered as such, nor was its driver holding a valid licence. Its carrying capacity has also not been established. The conglomeration of different pieces, peter rehra , cannot be considered road-worthy by any standards. Its being unbounded from sides and fully loaded, with humans and animals together, made it precariously unsafe and insecure not only for the travellers but also for others on the road. This, in fact, caused the accident in question, for which the respondents cannot be held liable.

¶44