M. SUJATHA Vs. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected appeals. The compensation payable to the legal heirs of one Madhavan Nadar is the centre of controversy in these appeals The claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 321 of 1979, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum are the appellants in M.F.A. No. 381 of 1983. The first respondent Corporation in the said claim petition is the appellant in M.F.A. No. 375 of 1984. Both these appeals are preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum in O.P. (MV) No. 321/1979 dated 6th June 1983. Deceased Madhavan Nadar was a Tractor driver in the Agriculture Department. On 10th January 1977, along with two others, he was travelling in the department vehicle, Jeep No. K.L.P. 2559, and at Koretty Junction of the M. C. Road a Fast Passenger Bus No. K.R.T. 407, belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, coming from the opposite direction at a high sped and on the wrong side of the road, hit the jeep and pushed it for about ten feet. Madhavan Nadar sustained very serious injuries in the accident and died on the next day, 11th January 1977, at Medical College Hospital. The claimants stated that Madhavan Nadar died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus by the driver of the Corporation. The widow and daughter of deceased Nadar claimed a total compensation of Rs. 2,12,500 against the Corporation, its driver and against the Department of Agriculture and the driver" of the Jeep.

(2.) The first respondent Corporation contested the claim. It was contended that the bus was not driven in a high speed or rashly and negligently. It was being driven at a normal speed with care and caution and the Jeep driver was responsible for the accident. It was further submitted that the injuries sustained, as stated in the petition, are exaggerated and the damages claimed are excessive and imaginary. After the amendment of the petition, the first respondent filed an additional written statement as well. disputing the claim made.

(3.) The second respondent Director of Agriculture stated that the jeep was driven properly on the correct side of the road and that the bus was running at a very high speed and it was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus the accident occurred. The third respondent driver of the jeep - also denied any negligence on his part and contended, that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and it hit the jeep and the accident was solely due to the negligence of the bus driver.