STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAM PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the award of the Tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act (Additional District Judge, Rewa) awarding compensation to Rani Pratap Singh (respondent No. 1) for the injuries sustained by him in an accident.

(2.) THE claimant's case was that on 4-8-1960 he was travelling in a bus No. M. P. A. 249. belonging to Sardar Gyan-singh, which was being driven by Rambi-shal. The bus was proceeding from Chhatarpur to Mahob. a. When the bus had proceeded for about three miles a truck belonging to the Public Works department, bearing No. M. P. Z. 1092, came from the opposite direction. The truck was being driven with great speed by its driver Santhanam, a P. W. D. employee. Though the driver of the bus took the bus towards the left side, the P. W. D. truck dashed against the middle portion of the bus. as a result of which the claimant sustained the injuries, resulting in fracture of the right ulna and the hume-rus. The claimant says that even after treatment, he is not in a position, to straighten his hand and cannot do any heavy work with it. Before the accident he used to drive his own tractor which he cannot do now. He had therefore, preferred a claim of Rs. 15,000/ -. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the driver Santhanam as well as the owner and driver of the bus were made parties to the claim proceedings so also the Premier Insurance Company with which the bus was insured.

(3.) FROM the written statement filed by the owner of the bus it would appear that the accident was caused because of the negligent driving of the driver of the P. W. D. truck. The stand of the State, on the contrary, is that it was because of the negligent driving of the driver of the bus that the accident took place. The State has also raised the plea of contributory negligence on the allegation that the claimant had put his elbow outside the window and he got hurt when the truck passed by the side of the bus. It was also pleaded that the State could not be held vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver, as the act was performed in the exercise of sovereign function.