GENERAL TRAVELS BANGALORE Vs. CHANDRAKALA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by respondents 1 to 5 in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 79 of 1914, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore. On 9-5-1974 at about 2.50 p. m. the bus MDL 1591 belonging to the 7th respondent and hired by respondent-1 carrying tourists from Bangalore to Madras met with in accident at a place near Marappattu between Vaniambadi and Ambur road, in the course of which the bus went off the road and after going to a distance of 200 yards, hit a tree and thereafter a wall of a house. As a result of the said accident, one Sadashiva Shetty sustained multiple injuries on the head and died in the hospital the same day. On the ground that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver the widow and the children of, the deceased Sadashiva Shetty filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. three lakhs.

(2.) The said claim was opposed. The first respondent in the said claim petition is a firm by name 'General Travels' carrying on business at Bangalore as a travel agency. Respondents 2 to 6 there in are the partners of the first respondent firm. The seventh respondent is the owner of the bus, the eighth respondent is the driver of the bus and the ninth respondent is the Insurance Company with which the bus had been insured. Except respondents 2 to 5 and 9, the other respondents remained exparte. Respondents 2 to 5 though filed a counter, did not take part at the enquiry and their counsel reported 'no instructions'. In their counter statement they had stated that the bus was driven very carefully and cautiously and when it was negotiating a turn, the axle got broken and the vehicle went out of control and as such the accident should be taken to have been an inevitable one in the circumstances. They also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive. The ninth respondent filed a counter affidavit adopting the counter filed by respondents 2 to 5 and adding that in any event the insurers liability has to be limited to Rs. 5000/- for the death of a passenger as per the terms of the policy and as per See. 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Having regard to these pleadings, the Tribunal set down the following two questions for consideration:- 1. Whether the 8th respondent drove the bus with rashness and negligence and was responsible for the accident; and 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to claim compensation and if-so, from which of the respondents.

(3.) After analysing the evidence adduced by the claimants and the Insurance Company, which alone took part at the enquiry the tribunal held that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus has been duly established and that the accident having been caused by such rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the liability to pay compensation has arisen. Dealing with the quantum of compensation, the tribunal held that having regard to the fact that the deceased was employed, as an Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Karnataka State Government, and he was 48 years of age at the time of his death, the compensation payable under the head of the loss of pecuniary benefit will be Rs. 1,44,000. In that view, the tribunal straightway passed an award as against all the respondents for the said sum of Rs. 1,44,000 however limiting the liability of the Insurance company to the sum of Rs. 5000/- and making the other respondents liable to pay the balance of Rs. 1,39,000 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the award of the tribunal, so far as it is against them, the respondents 1 to 5 alone have filed this appeal.