VARADA REDDY Vs. SUSEELAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Respondent is the Appellant in this C.M.A. 429 of 1970, which arises out of M.A.C.P. No. 27 of 1966. The said petition was filed by the first Respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs. 27,000/ - on account of the death of her husband Thambi Reddi in an accident, which took place on 11 -9 -1966 on Palamaner -Chittor road.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the Petitioner in M.A.C.P. No. 27/66 the bus A.P.C. 2571 driven by R.W. 1 was going along the road at a High speed, when the husband of the Petitioner, Thambi Reddy, was sitting on the pillion seat of the motor cycle belonging to the Appellant herein. They were going to Mahasamudram and they took a turn to the Mahasamudram road from Palamaner -Chittoor Road. The bus was going behind the motor cycle. On some occasions on the road the bus happened to over take the motor cycle while on some other occasions the motor cycle happened to over take the bus. At the turning towards Mahasamudram road the accident took place and the bus actually ran over the motor -cycle resulting in the instantaneous death of the first Respondent's husband and in causing serious injuries to the Appellant herein i.e. a fracture to his leg. He fell unconscious and his motor cycle got stuck up under the bus. The first Respondent therefore claimed the compensation amount from the owner of the bus A.P.C. 2571 and also from the Appellant herein on the ground that both of them were negligent in driving the vehicles, which caused the accident and the death of Thambi Reddi. The third Respondent in the C.M.A. 429 of 1970 is the General Assurance Society, Limited with whom the said bus was insured.

(3.) IN M.A.C.P. 9 of 196 the Appellant herein (C.M.A. 429/79) (second Respondent in the other case M.A.C.P. 27 of 1966) claimed from the owner of the bus and the Insurance Company a sum of Rs. 5000/ - towards compensation for the fracture of his leg caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus. Both the M.A.C.Ps. were tried together and evidence was recorded in M.A.C.P. 27 of 1966. In M.A.C.P. 9 of 1968 the motor Vehicles Inspector has been examined as P.W. 1 while the Appellant herein examined himself as P.W. 2.