SARDUL SINGH Vs. KALLOOBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT about 4 p.m. on 29.11.1974, a passenger bus (registration No. MPH -2715), belonging to the Appellant No. 1, met with an accident on the outer side of the open compound of a petrol pump -cum service station in Kampoo locality of this town. At that time, the Appellant No. 3, who was a bus -driver in the employ of the Appellant No. 1, was sitting on the driver's seat in the vehicle and controlling the steering wheel. As a result of the accident, a boy named Gulsher, aged about 13 years, was crushed to instantaneous death on the spot. His mother, i.e., the Respondent, claimed compensation under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Besides the Appellants 1 and 3, the Appellant No. 2 was also joined as a non -applicant on the allegation that the bus was owned not only by the Appellant No. 2 but by him also. The Claims Tribunal made an award of Rs. 5,000/ - only in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants 1 and 3 by order dated 4.3.1977, repelling the Respondent's allegation that the Appellant No. 2 was a co -owner of the bus. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have filed this appeal under Section 110 -D of the Act.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the accident took place were as follows. At the service station, the bus in question (No. MPH -2715) had been taken on a raised service platform for servicing. After its servicing, it had to be glided backwards on its four wheels in order to bring it down on the ground. So, the Respondent No. 3 sat on the driver's seat and took control of the steering wheel and, at his instance, some persons pushed the vehicle backwards from front. Thereupon, the vehicle glided backwards and came on the ground and went on gliding backwards and its rear portion dashed against another bus (No. MPH -6262) within the boundary of the service station. The ignition of the bus (No. MPH -2715) had not been switched on. The boy Gulsher, who was passing from there, was sandwiched in between the two buses and was crushed to death on the spot.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the spot where the accident occurred not being a public place, the claim was not maintainable. He has relied upon decisions in Randall v. Motor Insurance Bureau, 1969 A.C.J. 193 (England) and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Karthyani and Ors. : 1975 A.C J. 226(Orissa) decided by the High Court of Orissa. Those decisions are beside the point. They did not lay down that an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would not be maintainable unless the accident took place on a public place. There is no provision to the effect that an application for award of compensation under Section 110 -A of the Act would not be maintainable unless the accident took place on a public place. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is also, thus, without substance.