REDDIPILLI CHINNA RAO AND Vs. REDDI LORUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Visakhapatnam, awarding Rupees 58,000/- as compensation to the claimants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the bus A. A. V. 1099 and the United India Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd., have been held to be liable to pay this amount of compensation. The bus owner is held to be liable to pay Rs. 8,000/- and the Insurance company is held to be liable to pay the balance. C. M. A. No. 688 of 1976 has been filed by the owner of the bus whereas C. M. A. No. 650 of 1977 has been filed by the insurance company. For convenience sake the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in O. P. 36 of 1972 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughter and son and petitioners 4 and 5 are the mother and father of late Reddi Joannes who died at about 6-50 A. M. on 12-1-1972 in the bus accident. The bus A. A. V. 1099 belonging to the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent. On the date of accident the deceased, who was working as Supervisory Instructor in the Hindusthan Shipyard, was going to the place of his work on a scooter at about 6-50 A. M. The bus came in a reverse gear suddenly and dashed against the deceased. the deceased who was on the scooter, came under the two back wheels of the bus and died. Post mortem was conducted and it show the fracture of ribs and that there were multiple lacerations of right lobe of the liver. The post mortem certificate show that the bus ran over the victim. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 622-21 Ps. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards compensation for the loss of earning power. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver in coming in the reverse gear with high speed without blowing the horn.

(3.) first respondent filed a counter stating that he is the owner of the bus in question which was running in route No. 7. He alleged that the driver was a careful driver and that the deceased was only a learner and could not properly drive the scooter and control himself and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.