SITARAM PRABHU TELE Vs. RAJABAI VILAS PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, I intend to dispose of this group of five first appeals which arises out of the same accident though from separate claim petitions and separate awards. The only challenge in these first appeals is the correctness of the view taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in holding that the truck MHF-8740 was also being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident and liable to pay 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimants.

(2.) FOR the sake of brevity and convenience, I am dealing with the facts of First Appeal No. 674 of 1988. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are original claimants. The respondent No. 5 and 6 are original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants herein are original opponent Nos. 3 and 4 while respondent No. 7 herein is original respondent No. 5. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are owner and driver of S. T. Bus No. MTD-9392. The opponent Nos. 3 and 4 are owner and driver of truck No. MHG-8740. The opponent No. 5 is the insurer of the said truck. The claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of accidental death of Shri Vilas Anandrao Patil. Claimant No. 1 is the widow of deceased Vilas Anandrao Patil and Claimant No. 2 is the minor daughter. The claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of the deceased. The claimants set up the case that on 28th April, 1985, deceased Vilas Patil was travelling in truck No. MHF-8740 as a bona fide passenger. At about 12:15 p. m. or so, the truck was proceeding from Lamboti towards Mohol and when the truck crossed the bridge on Seena river near Lamboti, the State Transport Bus No. MTD-9392 being driven by opponent No. 2 in high speed coming from the opposite direction collided with the truck. As a result of collision, Vilas Patil died on the spot and many others got injured. According to the claimants, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck as well as the State Transport bus. The deceased was about 29 years of age at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and labour contractor. The claimants estimated monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- due to untimely death of deceased Vilas Patil.

(3.) THE opponent No. 1 filed written statement and traversed claimants petition. The opponent No. 2 adopted the written statement of opponent No. 1. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 thus denied that the S. T. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently at the relevant time or that opponent No. 2 was responsible for the accident in question. They set up the defence that the truck driven by opponent No. 4 and owned by opponent No. 3 came from the opposite direction and dashed against S. T. bus. According to them, the truck was being driven at high speed and rashly and negligently by opponent No. 4 and because of the impact there was considerable damage to the S. T. bus. In the alternative, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that if ultimately, the negligence of driver of S. T. bus is held, then their liability should be restricted to 25% while 75% liability should be fastened on opponent Nos. 3 and 4. Opponent Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate written statement and denied that opponent No. 4 at the relevant time was driving the said truck rashly and negligently. They submitted that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of S. T. bus. The said opponent Nos. 3 and 4 denied that deceased was bona fide passenger and submitted that when the truck halted at tea stall of village Lamboti, some labourers got into the truck and when the truck was due to proceed, the deceased came running from left side of the truck and when the truck was in slow motion, he jumped into the truck despite the fact that opponent No. 4 did not allow him to board the truck. The opponent No. 5 filed separate written statement and denied claimants allegations made in the claim petition. The opponent No. 5 also set up the defence that the deceased was unauthorised and gratutious passenger travelling in the truck and he was not covered under the insurance policy. The opponent No. 5 insurer also submitted that opponent No. 4 driver was not holding valid driving licence to drive the truck.