Case: Gurdeep Singh Vs. Bhim Singh &amp; Others

3. According to the Appellant, he was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521, belonging to Respondent No.4 - M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers, driven by Respondent No.5. He was proceeding from Sri Ganganagar to Delhi in the said bus driven by Amar Singh. When the bus reached at some distance, ahead of Hansi at about 2.30 A.M., a bus of Haryana Roadways, driven by Respondent No.1 - Bhim Singh, was going ahead of the bus at high speed. The Driver of the bus in which the Appellant was travelling, was also driving the bus at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. All passengers of the bus had requested the driver to drive it slowly and cautiously, but their requests were of no avail. The driver of Haryana Roadways applied the brakes all of a sudden probably with an intention to save an animal (Neel Gai) which was crossing the road at night. On account of it, there was a collision between the two buses.4. In the said road accident, the Appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to a nearby hospital for treatment and from where, he was referred to Kolmet Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Pusa Road, New Delhi for further treatment. Two-three operations were performed on the person of the Appellant on account of the multiple injuries said to have been suffered by him in the said road accident. According to him, he had already spent more than Rs.2 lacs for his treatment.5. He was, therefore, constrained to file a Claim Petition, as mentioned hereinabove, before the Claims Tribunal, claiming a total amount of Rs.5 lacs from the Respondents for the pain, sufferings, treatment, loss of earning capacity and other such factors, jointly and severally. On notices being issued to Respondents, Respondent Nos. and were proceeded ex parte, the name of Respondent No.4 was deleted and matter was contested by Respondents to and Respondent No.7/the United India Insurance Company Ltd.6. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal vide its Award dated 31.3.2001, came to the conclusion that no relief can be granted to the Appellant as he has not been able to prove that he was travelling in the bus which had actually met with the accident.7. Initially in the Claim Petition filed by Appellant, he had mentioned that he was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521, but there was no accident of this bus. The accident was with a bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529. There appears to be some confusion with regard to the actual Registration number of the bus belonging to M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers.8. In the evidence of RW-1 - Bhim Singh (Driver of the bus owned by Haryana Roadways), it has come on record that accident had actually occurred with the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 and there was no accident with bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521. Similar is the evidence of RW-2 - Suresh Kumar, Conductor of the bus owned by Haryana Roadways, who has also deposed in the same manner in which RW-1 - Bhim Singh had deposed, that the accident had taken place between the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529 and the bus of Haryana Roadways, but it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers.9. Initially, the Appellant had given correct Registration number of the bus owned by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers, but, later on, by way of amended Claim Petition filed by Appellant on 22.12.1997, he changed the bus Registration number and averred that bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1521 was involved in the accident and not the bus bearing Registration No. DL-1-P-1529.

Reasoning:
17. It is a matter of common knowledge that in motor road accidents claim cases, it is very difficult to get witnesses. The eye-witnesses are also not readily available. Even if available, they are not easily ready and willing to come and depose in court of law for many reasons. Thus, we have to go by the oath of the Claimant only. From the materials available on record, it is established and crystal clear that Appellant had definitely met with the accident. He was also travelling in the bus, operated by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers. It is also proved that the accident was between two buses on the intervening night ofth andth September, 1994.18. At the time of accident, Appellant was aged about years. He was engaged in a touring job and doing a business in Tractor spare-parts. He was earning an income of Rs.5,500/- per month out of this business. He had three college going children and wife. He became disabled after the said accident.19. Thus, looking to the facts and features of the case, we are of the considered opinion that Appellant deserves to be awarded just, proper and reasonable compensation keeping in view the medical evidence and his disability certificate.