NARAYAN Vs. NARAYAN SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 275/95 filed by M.P.S.R.T.C. and 317/95 filed by Narayan Singh against the award dated 1.2.1995 passed by 1st Addl. M.A.C.T. Dhar in Claim Case No. 89/92.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that on 8.4.1991 the claimant Narayan was travelling in passenger Bus No. C.I.I. 945 belonging to respondent Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and driven by non-applicant No. 5. This bus was coming from Indore to Bidwal. Near Labad, non-applicant No. 1 came from opposite direction driving Truck No. C.I.I. 7686, belonging to non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 3, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, as a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries on his right hand and other parts of the body. He was admitted in hospital where his right hand was amputated above elbow. The claimant filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The non-applicants resisted the claim. Driver and owner of both vehicles alleged negligence to each other. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the drivers of both vehicles were rash and negligent. The Tribunal determined the negligence of the driver of the truck at 2/3rd and that of the bus at l/3rd and . awarded compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-and directed the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck to pay 2/3rd of the compensation amount with accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum and l/3rd be paid by the Corporation. The Corporation filed M.A. No. 275/95 and the claimant filed M.A. No. 317/95 for enhancement of compensation amount.

(3.) Mr. Dhuper, learned Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding the driver of the passenger bus to be negligent. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The bus driver was not responsible for this accident. On the other hand, Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was right in holding that the bus driver was also negligent and rightly apportioned the liability.