SOUTHERN MOTORS MADURAI Vs. C SIVAJOTHIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. O. P. No. 84 of 1976, granting a sum of Rs. 23,000 as compensation to the claimants in the said O. P. in respect of a fatal accident that took place at Bathalagundu at about 8.30 a.m. on 10-4-1976, in which one Gurusami died.

(2.) On 10-4-1976 at about 8-30 a. m. a bus belonging to Messrs. Southern Roadways, the appellant herein, was leaving Kaliamman Koil bus stop on its way to Palani. At that point of time, the deceased Guruswami in his attempt to get into the bus is said to have fallen down from the moving bus. As a result of the fall from the moving bus, he sustained leg injuries to which he succumbed later. on the basis that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent conduct of the conductor and the driver of the bus, the wife, the three children of the deceased and his mother filed a claim petition u/s. 110A, Motor Vehicles Act. claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,000.

(3.) In the said claim petition, M/s. Southern Roadways alleged to be the owner of the bus and the insurance company with which the bus has been insured, the conductor of the bus and the driver of the bus have respectively been cited as respondents 1 to 4. Respondents 3 and 4, the driver and the conductor of the bus which was involved in the accident remained ex parte and the claim petition was contested mainly by the owner of the bus and the insurance company. Their main defence was that the deceased Gurusami did not travel at all in the bus in question, that in any event, as the deceased had attempted to get into the bus after the bus had started to move from the bus Stop, he should be taken to be exclusively responsible for the accident in question, and that there was no question of any rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver, nor the conductor was rash and negligent in giving the whistle for the bus to move. They also contended that, in any event the compensation claimed was excessive. The insurer, respondent 2 before the Tribunal in the claim petition, also took up a further plea that, in any event, its liability should be restricted to Rs, 5000, as the deceased was a passenger in the bus.