O K AYYAPAN Vs. DAYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, by its order dated 19th September, 1979. The quantum of compensation awarded is Rs. 16,200.00.

(2.) This claim arose out of an accident dated 19th December, 1971 when the deceased U.A. Kumaran, aged about 24 years, met with an accident. The deceased on the day of accident was travelling in mini bus No. DLP 4872 from Ring Road to his residence. Allegedly, since the bus was overcrowded the deceased was standing in the bus. It is alleged that the bus was being driven by its driver at a very fast speed and when it reached Yamuna bridge a Tempo bearing No. DLP 911 was found going ahead of the bus. The bus driver tried to overtake the Tempo but the Tempo driver refused to give way resulting in a sort of a race between the two vehicles as a result of which the deceased fell out of the bus and was trampled over and crushed by the aforesaid Tempo. The allegation is that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent which resulted in this unfortunate accident. On merits, the stand of the respondents was that of denial and respondent No. 2 further pleaded that the deceased was negligently hanging at the door of the bus. It is suggested that, in fact, the deceased who was negligently standing on the door of the bus was hit by an overloaded Tempo as a result of which he fell down and met with this accident.

(3.) The Tribunal on an assessment of evidence led in respect of the issues framed came to the conclusion that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by both the offending vehicles and the extent of negligence that was apportioned was in the ratio of 60 per cent for the bus driver and 40 per cent for the Tempo driver. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as the deceased, according to the Tribunal, could not have fallen and met with the accident if he was standing in the bus. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal inferred about the contributory negligence of the deceased, though Mr. Sharma, appearing for the respondents, frankly admitted that there is no evidence to the effect that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He further urges that the contributory negligence was rightly inferred as the deceased was standing on the door of the bus. In my view, there is a simple averment by the respondent No. 2 that the deceased was standing on the door and was hit by the overloaded Tempo, resulting in his fall and the accident. This averment was not substantiated by any evidence. It is, in my view, therefore, wrong to draw an inference that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The only proper and appropriate approach, in my view, is to believe that the bus was overcrowded and the deceased was also standing with the other passengers in the bus. The worst inference that can be drawn is that he might have been standing somewhere near the open door of the bus.