HARATHI ADIRAJAIAH Vs. SAVANDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Harathi Adirajaiah has preferred this MFA. under S. 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal), in MISC. Case No. 358 of 1966. Respondent No. 1, Smt. Savandamma, has preferred Cross-Objections invoking the provisions of Oreder XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Prosecude. She filed a petition on 16-4-1966 under S. 110A. of the Act before the Tribunal and prayed that a compensation of Rs, 20,000 be awarded on account of the death caused to her husband, K. C. Nagaraju, on 9-5-1965 as a result of an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle MYD 1797 owned by the appellant. It is alleged in the application that the deceased was a PWD. contractor aged about 28 years who was earning an income of about Rs. 300 per month. It is not disputed that Nagaraju boarded the bus at Dobspet at about 9 p.m. on 9-5-1965 with a view to go to cinema in Tyamagondlu and that he died as a result of an accident that occuried about two miles away from Tyamagondlu on the right side of the road. The case of the claimant is that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and that therefore the vehicle swerved to the right and collided against a tree, as a result of the impact of which the deceased Nagaraju was thrown cut of the vehicle and died immediately on account of the injuries sustained by him. It has also come in evidence that the deceased Nagaraju has left behind him not only his widow Smt. Savandamma, but also three minor Sons who are all his dependants. An application for condonation of the delay in presenting the application was also filed.

(2.) The application was resisted not only by the appellant, the owner of the vehicle, but also by respondent No. 2, the General Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle was insured. The application for condonation of delay was opposed and it was contended that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the application. That Nagaraju was travelling in the vehicle on the date of the accident and that he died as a result of the accident caused to the vehicle is not disputed. The claim for compensation was resisted mainly on the ground that the accident was not as a result of any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It was contended that even though all reasonable care was taken for the maintenance of the vehicle and its tyres, the front tyre on the right side of the vehicle suddenly burst when the vehicle was going at a moderate speed in the centre of the road, as a result of which the vehicle swerved to the right. It was further alleged that the deceased Nagaraju was sitting by a window seat behind the driver's seat and was putting his head out of the window and vomiting. Even though the driver warned him not to put his head out, the deceased Nagaraju continued to put his head out. It was alleged that it is because Nagaraju put his head out of the window, that when the vehicle suddenly swerved to the right, the cut branch of a tree on the right side of the road hit against the head of Nagaraju causing him injuries. When the vehicle was stopped, Nagaraju was brought out of the vehicle and the driver rushed to secure medical aid. By the time medical aid could be secured, Nagaraju had expired. In the alternative, it was contended that Nagaraju was guilty of contributory negligence.

(3.) The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the material placed by the parties, condoned the delay in preferring the application and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,100 to Smt. Savandamma. As regards the liability of the second respondent, the General Insurance Coy., the Tribunal restricted the same to a sum of Rs.2,000.