PANDYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION Vs. R. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the judgment of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai in M.A.C.O.P. 43 of 1979. M/s. Pandyan Roadways Corporation Ltd., the second respondent before the Tribunal, has filed C.M.A. 653 of 1980 challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners in M.A.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1979 had filed C.M.A. 718 of 1982 for the portion of the compensation disallowed by the Tribunal from the claim made by them.

(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly as follows :- The claimants, viz., R. Jayalaksbmi and v. Karuppiammal are the wife and mother respectively of the deceased E. Ramaswami, aged 31, and who was working as a junior Assistant in the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Manamadurai. The said E. Ramaswami died on 4-2-1979 in an accident when he was returning to his village. At that time while crossing the bye-pass road in his cycle along the left side of the road the bus belonging to the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., bearing TMN 5194 dashed against him as a result of which he was killed on the spot. The wife and mother of the deceased had come forward with the claim for compensation.

(3.) ACCORDING to the claimants the deceased met with his death on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 5194. We have the evidence of P.W. 3, the eye-witness. In chief examination P.W. 3 deposed that when the deceased Ramaswami was crossing the road from south to north, the bus which was coming from east to west dashed against him and dragged him upto the near bridge. The bus also as a result of the impact capsized. He also deposed that at the time of the accident the bus was driven at a high speed. In cross examination he has also stated that the deceased Ramaswami had crossed one-half of the road at the time when the bus dashed against him. As against this evidence, the driver of the bus who was examined as R.W. 1, had stated that he drove the bus at a speed of 30 K.M.P.H and that the deceased who was coming on the left side of the road had suddenly crossed into the main road and inspite of applying brake the accident had happened. The Tribunal on this evidence had come to the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. This finding is challenged on behalf of the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. From the facts it is seen that the bus had not only dashed against the deceased but also dashed against the culvert and capsized. The fact that the bus capsized and the same could not be controlled clearly shows that the bus must have been driven at that time at a high speed. According to P.W. 1 the deceased had crossed the road and when he was on the left side of the road the bus dashed against him. If that was so the driver of the vehicle ought to bear the blame. According to the driver, the deceased had suddenly crossed and that he could not stop the bus in spite of applying brake. Even if the deceased had crossed suddenly yet a duty is cast upon the driver to avert the accident. From the fact that the deceased was found on the left side of the road it cannot be said that the deceased had crossed the road suddenly as spoken by R.W. 1. Considering the entire circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus will have to be sustained.