UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. SUKHLAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of and are directed against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 30-8-1978 in Claim Case No. 28 of 1974.

(2.) ONE Sangram Singh who was working as a City Bus driver with the U.P. Road Transport Corporation was driving Bus No. UPI 5234 on 12-10-73. While he was going on Kanpur-Bilhaur Road and had reached near the village Lalpur at about 5-15 a.m. a tanker bearing No. UPG 6555 owned by Smt. Saraswati Devi driven by Sitaram, which was insured by United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, suddenly came on the same road from the opposite direction at a very rash speed and because of the negligence of the driver of the tanker, Sitaram, and inspite of efforts made by the driver of the bus, Sangram Singh, the tanker dashed against the bus. As a result, Sangram Singh received serious injuries and was taken to H. M. Hospital, Kanpur immediately after the occurrence. It was in the hospital that inspite of the medical attendance, Sangram Singh expired on 14-10-1973. Claim petition was filed by Sukhpal Singh, father, Smt. Raj Dulari, widow, Sri Udai Raj, Hans Raj and Hem Raj, sons and Km. Kumkum Devi, Km. Rekha Devi and Km. Krishna Devi, unmarried daughters of the deceased Sangram Singh. The total claim was for a sum of Rs. 71916/-. The allegations were that at the time of his death, Sangram Singh, deceased, was 40 years of age and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 256.75 P. and the claimants being his heirs and dependants were entitled to the compensation.

(3.) BOTH , the Insurance Company, as well as Smt. Saraswati Devi and Sita Ram, contested the petition. Their contention was that the tyre of the right-front wheel of the tanker suddenly burst and although the tanker was not running at a very high speed, nevertheless, it went out of control. It is, however, contended that it was stopped at about 50 yards away from the bus and actually it was the bus which was responsible for the accident since it struck against the stationary tanker and the accident was thus caused. The Insurance Company also contended that the claim was barred by limitation against it. It was also said that the petition was not maintainable and the claimants were not entitled to file it. One of the other pleas was that the death of Sangram Singh had not occurred on account of this accident and that the deceased was also liable for contributory negligence.