VINOBABAI Vs. K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimant's appeal instituted against the Judgment and Award dated 30-9-1975 passed in M.V.C. No. 53/1974 on the file of the Claims Tribunal, offence.

(2.) The claimants are the widow and children of Gurusangappa Karabantanal, a conductor under the K.S R.T.C., drawing according to claimants Rs. 300 per month and he was aged about 34 years at the time of his death. It is the case of the claimants that on 7-7-1974 at about 1 p.m., the deceased came by the road side of Kutakankeri cross on Guledagud-Badami road to halt a K.S.R.T.C. bus which was proceeding on the road, bearing No. MYF 4323. The driver of the bus who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down Gurusangappa and ran over his head and killed him on the spot On these averments, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 1,21,400 from respondents. Respondent-1 is the Deputy General Manager, K.S.R.T.C and respondent-2 is the driver. They contested the claim by their statement of objections. They contended that the deceased suddenly tried to cross the road when the express bus was going on the road and thus he was run over, and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence they contended that they were not liable for compensation. During hearing, the claimants examined Vinobabai the widow of the deceased as PW-1. They examined PW-2 Irappa the conductor of the bus which caused the accident. As against that, the respon- MFA 694/75. dents examined the driver of the bus Hassansab as RW-1 and closed their case. The learned Member of the Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record, held that the petitioners failed to establish that there was actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident. In that view, the Tribunal dismissed the petition for compensation. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for claimants-appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate properly the evidence on record and that the evidence of the driver himself was sufficient to hold that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus and that further it was on record that the driver was convicted on his own plea of guilty before the criminal Court. . Hence he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver RW-1 and further that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the claimants. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents argued supporting the finding and the final award of the Tribunal. We were taken through the evidence and award of the Tribunal.