MAHIPAT SOYE Vs. BHAGWAN VAZIR CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original opponents Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of truck No. MHS 1229, preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18th October 1980 passed by she Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, ordering the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 8,915/- to the respondents Nos. 1 to 6, who are the heirs of deceased Sabjobai who was crushed under the truck of the appellants.

(2.) ON 12th September 1979 at about 6 a.m. the appellant No. 1 Pandit Mahipat Soye, who was employed as a driver by the appellant No. 2 Ramesh Gulabchand Varma, was driving truck No. MHS 1229 and was proceeding from Jalgaon towards Erandol. The truck ascended the bridge from Jalgaon town side, came over the top of the bridge and thereafter'took a turn towards left, that is, towards west. The slope of the bridge is from east to west, and after taking the turn the accident took place just about ten to fifteen feet from the right angle turn on the bridge itself. Sabjobai came under the wheels of the truck and died instantaneously. According to the respondents Nos. 1 to 6, who are the heirs of deceased Sabjobai, the death of Sabjobai was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck; Sabjobai was a sweeper working in the employment of Jalgaon Municipal Council and her monthly income was Rs. 432/-. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6, as dependents of Sabjobai, claimed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. The appellants filed the consolidated written statement Ex. 19 and the opponent No. 3, who is the respondent No. 7, also disputed the claim of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 by its written statement Ex. 14. The opponents denied that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. They denied that the driver was rash in driving the truck and as a result thereof the death of Sabjobai was caused. Their case was that just before the accident, when the opponent No. 1 came on the top of the bridge and turned his vehicle towards the western side for going to Erandol, another truck came from the opposite direction in excessive speed. The truck coming from the opposite direction was being driven by the wrong side, and, therefore, the opponent No. 1, to be more cautious, took his vehicle to the left and yet he could not avoid the impact. The truck coming from the opposite direction brushed the opponent No. 1 vehicle and went ahead towards Jalgaon side. According to the opponent No. 1, when the truck coming from the opposite direction brushed his truck, he immediately stopped his vehicle and got down. At that time he got down from the vehicle and noticed a woman in a ditch. The body of the woman was under the left side rear wheels of his truck. He rushed to the police-station and reported the accident. Thus the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and also the opponent No. 3, the Manager, United India Insurance Company, Jalgaon, denied their liability to compensate the applicants. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the original opponents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.