PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. SESHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No. LWWO on the tile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge) Chengalpattu. The respondents in this appeal are the petitioners in that proceeding. In this judgment, the parties to this appeal are referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the proceedings before the Court. A person by name Babu met with his end at 5:15 P.M., on 10 -12 -1979 at Manimangalam road junction near Karsangal on the Vandalur -Wallajah road involving the bus bearing No. TMN 1507 belonging to the respondent is not in dispute. However, the controversy is only with reference to the fact as to who is responsible for the accident either each exclusively or both contributing equally. The first petitioner is the mother, the second petitioner is the widow and the other petitioners who were minors on the date of the accident, are the children of the deceased Babu. According to the Claim Petition, he was going on a cycle on the left side of the road (which is his correct side). The bus referred to above was also proceeding in the same direction and it was driven in such a rash and negligent manner, it hit against the deceased causing injuries to him. In support of the question as to how the accident look place, the claimants have examined P.W.2. He claims to have witnessed the entire accident and according to him, the deceased who was going ahead in that road on the left side of the road was hit from behind by the speeding bus of the respondent. As against this evidence, the driver of the bus had given evidence as R.W.1. He would slate that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident in that, he had suddenly taken a right turn without noticing the vehicle coming from behind. However, the Tribunal chose to accept the evidence of P.W.2. and rejected the evidence of R.W.1. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - as against a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - claimed.

(2.) Questioning the correctness of this judgment, both on the ground of negligence and on the ground of the quantum of compensation, the respondent before the lower Court, had filed this appeal. Not satisfied with the award passed, the claimants before the lower court have filed cross objections for that portion of the amount which was disallowed.

(3.) I heard Mr. G. Munitratnam learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal and for the respondent in the cross -objections as well as Mr. C. Lakshminarain learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal and for cross objectors.