1988 PLP 715 (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 13‑12‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan Camp at Sahiwal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that bus No.FDA‑9746 driven by the appellant met with an accident on 16‑2‑1984 as a result of which it was damaged. The appellant was ordered to pay Rs.l, 600 as damages, which amount is being deducted from his pay by instalments. The case of the respondent is that the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent act, therefore, he is liable to pay damages, whereas the appellant did not disclose in his grievance petition the cause of the damages caused to the bus. In his statement recorded in the Court he deposed that when the bus was running he all of a sudden felt a jerk and the bus went out, of control and went outside the road on the right side. He further deposed that after the accident he found that the shaft was opened. He explained that the cause of the breaking of the shaft was that the pins of the back spring fell down and the bus became unbalanced. Ex. R‑3 is the report made by the appellant, in which he has stated that when he tried to cross a truck, the truck drove towards his side with the result that the bracket points of the spring were broken and the bus went towards the right side. Evidence of two witnesses was recorded at the spot after the accident who stated that the driver of the bus had tried to overtake a truck when the truck was passing a tongs. standing on the left side and in this way the accident took place. The evidence of the said witnesses could not be used against the appellant as they were not examined in his presence, nor they were examined during the inquiry. If the evidence of these witnesses had been recorded at the spot in the presence of the appellant, of course it could have been necessary for him to produce these witnesses in defence in the inquiry. But since the appellant in, his report Ex.R‑3 admitted that the accident took place when he was crossing a truck, it' is clear that he was responsible for the accident. The fact that the bus went towards the right leaving the road shows that the appellant was trying to overtake truck. This is also in evidence that the road was uneven and there were small ditches. Since the road condition was not good, it was not advisible for the appellant to overtake the truck. Thus, from the very report of the appellant Ex. R‑3 it stands proved that he was responsible for the accident.

3. However, the amount of Rs.1,800 is excessive. According to the damage report Ex.R‑1, the estimate of the total damage was Rs.1,800 and according to the order of the District Manager, copy of which is Ex.R‑17, Rs.1,800 were imposed upon the appellant as part cost of the damage caused to the bus. The relevant portion of Ex.R‑17 reads as under:‑ "He is debited with Rs.1,800 as part cost of damage to Bus No.9746. The said amount will be recovered from his salary . . . . . . . " Since the estimate of the total damage caused to the bus was Rs.1,800, the part of the cost of damages could not be the same amount but less than that. ???????????

4. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the damages are reduced to Rs.900. A.E. /519/Lb.P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly accepted.