SITABAI ADKUJI MESHRAM Vs. DISTRICT TRANSPORT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the original plaintiffs. They have come in revision against an order dated February 14, 1969 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1967, arising out of the plaintiff's civil suit No. 89 of 1965 decided on March 31, 1967 by the Court of the 10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The action by the plaintiffs was for the recovery of damages on account of the loss of life of one Adkuji Vithobaji Meshram, the husband of applicant No. 1 and the father of applicant No. 2. It was alleged that he died due to the rash and negligent act of opponents Nos. 2 and 3, who were the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Defendant No. 2 was the driver who was running the bus of defendant No. 1 -District Transport Company -and defendant No. 3 was the conductor. It appears that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were trying to take this bus belonging to defendant No. 1 in a flood on a bridge on the river Aam near Umred on August 6, 1964. The bus capsized in the flood waters resulting in the deaths of some passengers including Adkuji.

(2.) VISHWANATHRAO Dhondbaji Samarth is described in the suit as a proprietor of defendant No. 1 District Transport Company, Nagpur. It was stated in the plaint that he was the proprietor of the District Transport Company. He had also admitted in his written statement that the bus which capsized was running on the road permit of District Transport Company, Nagpur, of which he was the proprietor. He was the proprietor also on the day of the accident. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit against all the three defendants.

(3.) THE reply to this application of the applicants was that the District Transport Company, Nagpur was a partnership firm and that, therefore, the death of Vishwanathrao did not adversely affect the appeal. The learned Extra Assistant Judge held, by his order dated February 14, 1969, that the appeal does not abate. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the applicants. It is against this order of the Extra Assistant Judge that the applicants (who were original plaintiffs) have come here in revision. The only point, therefore, that arises here is to see whether this order of the Extra Assistant Judge is legal and proper.