M.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. RATEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 349/95, M.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. Rateesh and Anr. and M.A. No. 578/95, Rateesh v. Saifuali and Ors. against the award dated 18.4.1995 passed by M.A.C.T. Dewas in Claim Case No. 125/90.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.7.1990 the appellant-claimant (M.A. No. 578/95) was coming from Ujjain to Dewas by travelling in passenger bus No. M.B.W. 1538 driven by non-applicant No. 1 belonging to Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). Near village Singawda, another bus bearing Registration No. M.B.E. 1837 belonging to the Corporation and driven by respondent No. 2 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus No. M.B.W. 1538, as a result of which the claimant sustained compound fracture in his both legs, three fractures in left leg and four fractures in right hand and fracture of both collar bone. He was admitted in District Hospital Ujjain. Plaster was applied. He suffered 54% permanent disability in his lower and upper limb. He had to remain on leave for a period more than 6 months. He, therefore, filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/-. The respondent-Corporation who is the owner of both the vehicles resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that a she-baffalo came before the bus, for avoiding accident the driver applied brakes all of a sudden, as a result of which this bus struck against the bus coming from Ujjain. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the bus No. M.B.W. 1538 was driven by respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the bus No. M.B.E. 1837 in which the appellant was travelling and he sustained fracture of his lower and upper limbs. The Tribunal held that it could not be proved that the appellant-suffered permanent disability and awarded compensation of Rs. 22,200/-. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed M.A. No. 578/95 and the Corporation also filed MA. No. 349/95.

(3.) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both sides and perused the record. From the evidence of Rateesh (A.W. 1), Narsingh Laxmanprasad (A.W. 2) and Mahesh Kumar Chorasiya (A.W. 3) it has been proved that the driver of the bus of the Corporation coming from Dewas came driving the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which they were travelling. They denied that any buffalo came in front of this bus. It is true that Saifu Ali (N.A.W. 1), the driver of the bus coming from Dewas, deposed that he was driving the bus at moderate speed, a buffalo came in front of this bus, he, therefore, applied brakes, due to which this bus slipped and dashed against the bus coming from Ujjain. Bhagirath Mali (N.A.W. 2), the conductor of the bus did not support Saifuali fully. He did not state that a buffalo came in front of the bus, according to him it came on the side of the bus. There is variance between the evidence and the pleading. In para 7 of written statement it was averred that the bus did not dash against the bus coming from Ujjain. However, in para 10 by way of amendment, story of buffalo was introduced. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal considered the evidence of both sides deeply and rightly held that the bus coming from Dewas was driven in rash and negligent manner,as a result of which it hit the bus coming from Ujjain in which the appellant was travelling and he sustained injuries.