PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD Vs. PANCHALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALLAVAN Transport Corporation Limited represented by its Managing Director is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed against an award dated 28.6.1978 in O.P.No.33 of 1976 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal held on an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act that the petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to a compensation of Rs.32,000 and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 32,400/- against the appellant herein and in favour of respondents 1 to 3 herein and also passed an award for a sum of Rs.5,400/- against the appellant herein and in favour of the second respondent/ fourth respondent herein. The award amounts would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of award. Respondents 1 to 3 would share the award amount equally. Respondent 2 and 3 herein being minors, their share amounts would be invested in Canara Bank, Perambur Barracks Road Branch until the time the minors attain majority and their mother and next friend would be entitled to receive the interest that would accrue on the deposited amounts for their benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein before the Tribunal was that the deceased had met with an accident on 29.11.1975 at 6,45 p.m., at Golla-war Agraharam Road, near Rainy Hospital, Tondiarpet, while proceeding along the road, dragging his hand-cart. THEir case is that the PTC bus TMN.238 which came in the opposite direction had knocked down the deceased person and caused him fatal injuries as a result of which he thed after a week in the hospital. THEir further case is that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was daily earning Rs.20/- THErefore, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- impleading the father of the deceased as the second respondent/fourth respondent herein.

(3.) THIS Court has carefully gone through, the evidence available on record and finds that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that due to rash and negligent driving of the PTC bus by R.W.1 the accident took place. The deceased thed in the hospital on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident:. That the bus in question was driven in a rash and negligent manner by R.W.1 is borne out by the oral evidence available on record together with the documentary evidence, such as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P4. It is seen that the accident did not take place due to any latent defect in the vehicle. On the other hand, the evidence available on record clearly shows that R.W.1 had now appeared in Court setting out a story to oblige the appellant herein from paying any amount to the claimants If really the driver was innocent and was not negligent, he would have reported the matter to the police and would have made them record a statement from him touching the incident. But he had not cared to do so. There was no evidence of a loaded cart being dragged by the handcart puller at that time. Only an empty handcart was dragged by the deceased, and P.W.6 clearly proved negligence on the part of the driver alone. If really the bus was stopped before the impact, there is no possibility of the rear wheel of the bus running over the right leg of the handcart puller. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in having believed the evidence of P.W.6 and came to the conclusion that the driver of the PTC bus alone was rash' and negligent in the driving of the PTC bus. THIS Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence the finding of the Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence of the driver of the P.T.C. bus is hereby confirmed.