CHAURASIA AND CO Vs. PRAMILA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award dated 30th April 1971 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh, by which the claim of respondents 1 to 4 was allowed to the extent of Rs. 28,098/ -.

(2.) ON 17th July 1969 an unfortunate accident happened in which a passenger bus was swept away by the flood waters of the river Sunar as a result of which seven persons lost their lives. One Salyanarayan Rao, who was Block Extension Educator in Batia-garh, was among the seven persons who died in the accident. Respondents 1 to 4, who laid the claim before the Tribunal, are res pectively the widow, two minor sons and one minor daughter of the deceased Satya- narayan Rao. The passenger bus which was involved in the accident belonged to M/s. Chaurasia and Company, a partnership firm, which is the appellant in this appeal. The bus was going from Chhatarpur to Damoh. It was driven by John Victor, a driver employed by the appellant. While going from Damoh to Chhatarpur Sunar river has to be crossed after Batiagarh. There is no regular bridge over the river; there is only a cause-way which gets sub merged during floods. The bus reached Sunar river between 1 and 2 p. m. The river was flowing over the cause-way. There is a dispute between the parties as to the level of the water on the cause-way. The driver, in spite of the water flowing over the cause-way, drove the bus over it. After the bus had crossed about one third of the cause-way, it skidded towards the left and one of its wheels got stuck up in the stones embedded on the sides. The passengers re mained inside the bus, but after some time when they found the water rising they climbed over the top of the bus. After one or two hours the bus was swept away by the flood and it rolled over as a result of which the passengers sitting on the top were thrown in the surging waters. Some of them were rescued; but seven persons including Satyanarayan Rao died. The Tri bunal held that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver in driving the bus and that the appellant was liable.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. It is argued that the water over the cause-way was only four to six inches and it was not unreasonable to attempt to cross the cause-way. It is pointed out that a police vehicle had crossed the river before the bus attempted to cross it. It is also argued that the passengers including Satya-narayaa Rao were themselves negligent in remaining in the bus and they could and should have crossed the river by walking over the cause-way. It is then contended that the death of the passengers was caused by their own negligence and not by the negligent driving of the bus.