[JoshMachine]

Firstly, the case: both driver and owner are guilty of this horrible accident. Fair.
Next, the judgement: driver gets 190 years while owner gets just 10 years. Not fair.

In my view, the owner is equally responsible and should be accorded similar judgement. Here's why:

Reason #1:In most of these cases, the driver can be under pressure to reach the destination before time, by the owner. Owner at fault, made worse by reckless driving.

Reason #2: owner is usually responsible for adding that extra seat in the bus (in this case, by blocking the emergency seat). Driver has no play potentially in this. Passengers got trapped unfortunately. Again, owner at fault.

But dishing out 190 years to the driver and just 10 years to the owner makes no sense practically. Sentencing should be harsh no doubt, but rational too.

[aargee]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

How did such a bus with welded-closed emergency exit pass the annual inspection? No action against the RTO official who signed it's fitness certificate?

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

You make a very valid point. The RTO official who passed the vehicle should also serve 10 years.

RTO folks will simply make a statement that, when we checked it had compliance to all our norms & the owner could've changed it later!! Even if Parivahan 4.0 has video & picture evidence now, back in 2015, sure there wasn't any sort of recording the proof of compliance.

[Rohan265]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Bus driver gets 190 years prison sentence for killing 22 in a bus crash.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/88642084.cms

The driver convicted in the Panna bus accident of MP (Madhya Pradesh Today News) has been sentenced to 190 years. On May 4, 2015, the passenger bus he was driving fell about 14 feet on to a dry canal bed near Panna, in which 22 people were burnt alive while 15 others were rescued. The accident was so terrible that the skeletons of 22 people were taken out from inside the bus.

At that time the survivors had told that the bus was speeding. A passenger on the bus was also carrying some flammable sealant material in a drum. Many passengers implored the driver to slow down but to no avail. The bus suddenly went out of control near Pandav Falls and fell 14 feet when crossing a dry canal. The bus caught fire as soon as it fell into the ditch. Eyewitnesses & some passengers aboard the bus said that the diesel tank of the bus exploded, causing the bus to catch fire. Inflammable material kept inside the bus also started burning due to which 22 passengers were trapped inside the bus, due to which they died. The incident was so horrific that only the skeletons of 22 passengers could be pulled out and they could only be identified after DNA testing. Further the emergency exit had been blocked by welded rods and an additional set of seats installed there.

The owner got 10 years.

The driver's sentence comprises of 19 separate sentences of 10 years each which shall run separately i.e. one after the other.

I’m glad that courts in India have started giving out exemplary sentences.

The verdict is lopsided towards the human failure aspects of the crash. There is no mention of the contributory negligence of the road developer/maintenance company.
I found this news coverage for the crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNArQbvgRII

The first thing I noticed was that the culvert has no roadside protective barriers. I believe that this is a major contributor to the crash. The Safe System approach followed in many countries mentions that the road infrastructure should be designed to accommodate human error.

The driver was probably stated as "rash and negligent and overspeeding" as per the passengers and investigation report (Although I doubt any police officer may have tried to calculate the vehicle speed in such a crash). However, the road design (in this case a barrier) should have taken care of this human failure. It is not as if having barriers for culverts is something unheard of in India.

Apart from the "rash driving", the only other culpability of the driver I can think of is that he allowed the carriage of flammable material in the bus.
If that is indeed the reason for the verdict, then it should be mentioned to set a good precedence. But, does that warrant a sentence of 190 years?

I hope that the case is challenged in the higher courts and the final verdict also includes the culpability of the road developer. To me, that would be useful precedence for the entire country. However, I do realise that this is wishful thinking.

P.S: The fire is an unfortunate secondary event in the crash that led to the fatalities. Considering the drop of the vehicle, I doubt the severity would have been this high without the fire.

[mytbhp_turbo]

190 years is good first step but will not be helpful much, rash driving by vehicle govt owned vehicles (can be bus, RTO pick up vehicles, Garbage tipper truck) can only be fixed if they are fined by local administration, not all rash driving causes major causalities ( like 22+ here ) but these vehicles should not dare to ignore signal, scratch cars, crush someone on bicycle.

[libranof1987]

There are so many issues in this incident. While a LOT of drivers in India do not deserve to drive a vehicle, let alone be responsible for the lives of the passengers they carry, they are possibly the smallest/meekest cog in the wheel.

1) It is already out in the open that drivers have set targets for revenue / journey time / fuel consumed, by their operators. Add to that, difficult living/operating conditions
2) RTO officials colluding with owners/operators in passing below par vehicles + blocking emergency exits
3) Road contractors for the rubbish that most of our highways are
4) Indian motorists themselves for driving like they're walking in the garden of their mansion
5) The passenger who was carrying flammable material - how was this allowed, when EVERY bus in India has warnings not to carry any

Sure, hand an unreasonable sentence to the driver because he has absolutely no defence / fall back but at the same time, find and fix other contributors to such incidents.

[charanreddy]

Going against the tide.

The bus driver did drive rashly and negligently and caused a lot of unintentional harm. Life imprisonment is apt as driver will reflect on his wrong doing and have a chance to correct. Just the other day I heard a news story where a politicians son directly caused the suicide of a family of 4 in Telangana and hast been arrested yet. Unfortunately the justice system in India is only for people who can afford a good lawyer and poor get disproportionately impacted. Just look the number of undertrials languishing for minor offences for lack of services of a decent lawyer.

This looks like a case of judicial excess.

[Voodooblaster]

:

The pic of a bus shown in teambhp newsletter is not that of the bus that met with accident



Thirumal Alagu Travels (TAT) is a pvt bus service operator based in SouthernTamilnadu. Their website claims that they started operations in 1954

It's a pretty decent operator

They were the first pvt operator to introduce Scania Bus in Trivandrum AFAIK (The bus ran in TVM Chennai route)

Our forum member Binai K S has used this operator and shared his experience in his blog

Anyway, i seem to be digressing too much from the point. Please remove the cover pic for this post. Please use some generic bus pic instead of an unrelated active business

Disclaimer: I am in no way related to TAT

[SPIKE ARRESTOR]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Going against the tide.

Me too!

Conviction of driver and owner - ok.
Quantum of punishment - not ok.

How did Manu Sharma walk free of a heinous crime? I've a feeling, if the driver had better resources at his disposal, his sentence would have been lesser.

Does the 190 year prison sentence ensure that he is not eligible for remission? Are there any precedents on this?

Spike

[brd]

The judgment of the Hon'ble court may sound 'Wow, Great'. But, is it logical? and is it conclusive?

Unfortunately, IMO, it is neither logical nor conclusive, for the reasons I have mentioned.

We are in 'Kaliyug' and homo sapiens don't live for 190 years, although some hit and cross the century. Therefore, I am not sure what the learned judge had in mind while passing the order of 190 years of a prison sentence. A judgment must also be 'implementable'. If orders passed by authorities are beyond the understanding or imagination of 'Mango People' (Aam Aadmi), then the authorities passing such orders should also explain how it would be implemented.

Further, we are in India, and the legal system here gives ample opportunities for the 'aggrieved' to 'appeal' and 'further appeal'. Therefore, this judgment is not final and I am pretty sure that the Owner and the Driver would have appealed, and also got the sentence 'suspended' by the higher courts. [note - I am not sure what is the exact current status in this particular case, but I am more writing on the 'normal process in such trials']. Therefore, it would be interesting to wait and watch the views/orders of the Higher Courts when the aggrieved persons appeal against this judgment.

Such judgments of the Hon'ble courts which are in favor of safe driving should be more publicized by the law enforcement agencies AKA police. I am not sure how many bus drivers or truck drivers or even cab/auto drivers read newspapers and are aware of such judgments. The police or RTO should find a way to educate the masses, including BHPians like us on such harsh court rulings so that a sense of fear against negligent driving/riding could be instilled. The public at large learning from such rulings is more important.

Let us hope that such judgments, would be small steps for a larger cause of safer roads and safer travel.