VARADAMMA Vs. H. MALLAPPA GOWDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Shimoga, dated 20tli June, 1967, in Misc. Case No. 514/1963, dismissing the application of the Appellant filed under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE Appellant is the mother of the victim of a motor accident which took place at 4 p.m., on 27 -8 -1963 on account of the bus, MYU 1678, belonging to the first Respondent, running over the deceased who was a boy of 4 years, by name Subbaraya. He was travelling with his elder brother, Ganapathi, having boarded the bus at Sagar at about 3.45 p.m., bound for his destination at Lingadahalli,. The bus reached Lingadahalli round about 4 p.m., and stopped at the recognised bus stop on the road. That stop oh the road is said to be an inclined plane sloping towards the front of the bus. When the bus -stopped some passengers got down from the bus. According to the case of the Appellant, the deceased boy was about to get down from the bus and was standing on the foot board and his elder brother, Ganpathi had already got down from the bus. When the boy was thus standing on the foot -board; the conductor of the bus is alleged to have signalled to the driver to start by calling cut the usual word 'right'. On such a signal, the driver is said to have started the vehicle and the boy who was on the point of alighting from the bus accidentally fell under the hind wheels of the bus and died on the spot. In the first instance only the first Respondent, the owner of the bus, was impleaded. He admitted that he was the owner of the bus in question but alleged that the bus was taken on hire by the second Respondent under an agreement dated 19 -6 -1960, to be inforce for a period of three months, and that the bus was under the control of the second Respondent at the time of the accident. He, therefore, contended that it is the second Respondent who is responsible, if at all, to pay the compensation claimed by the Appellant. The second Respondent, thereafter was impleaded as a party. The second Respondent in his objections, denied that he had taken the bus on hire from the first Respondent. The third Respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured.

(3.) P . Ws. 2 and 3 were passengers travelling in the bus on that day to Lingadahalli. They also got down from the bus at Lingadahalli. According to their evidence, Ganapathi got down from the bus and was trying to bring down Subbarayya. Ganapathi was standing below and asking Subbarayya to come down. When Subbarayya was getting down the Conductor gave the signal to start the bus by saying 'right'. The driver drove the bus forward and Subbaraya fell on his face on the ground and the hind wheel of the bus went over his head.