IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2145 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:06.10.2010 Gurdeep Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Parkash Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The claimant is in appeal seeking for enhancement and a reversal of a finding relating to contributory negligence. The accident was the result of a collision of the insured's bus with the truck which had been parked on the side of the road when the deceased driver was attending to some repairs in the vehicle. The defence version of the insured's bus was that there was a VIP vehicle coming from the opposite direction and due to dazzle of lights, he took it to the extreme end of the road and did not notice the truck being stationed there on account of the alleged fact that there were no indicator lights for the parking of the FAO No.2145 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - truck. The Tribunal found that the truck had been dangerously parked in the road and would constitute a traffic offence in the manner contemplated under Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It said that the death which had occurred by the deceased getting crushed by the impact of the bus on the truck had been contributed by the negligence of the deceased himself and took the liability of the truck at 70% and that of the bus at 30%. 2. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be wholly unacceptable. If a vehicle goes into the state of disrepair and it is parked at the end of the road and when the driver attending to it, it will be wrong to characterize such parking as a dangerous parking. It is not as if the vehicle has simply been parked in the middle of the road. It has come through evidence that it had been parked at the end of the road. If the driver of the bus could not properly manoeuvre by dazzling lights of a VIP vehicle coming from the opposite direction, it must only be seen that the driver of the bus was negligent in his ways and he did not properly steer the vehicle to safety. A person, who was working on his own vehicle not on the road but at the end of it, cannot come to any harm without attributing the negligent conduct on the other person, who caused fatal injuries. I would reverse the finding in full and hold the insured's vehicle as responsible for the accident. 3. The Tribunal has already found the compensation payable for such negligence at Rs.1,99,000/-. It has by the apportionment made provided for a compensation of Rs.59,700/-. I will enhance it to the amount determined in full and making the insurer to pay the entire FAO No.2145 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - amount, with the additional amount with interest at 9% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Direction of payment at 10% given by the Tribunal for Rs.59,700/- shall remain. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.10.2010 sanjeev