MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD Vs. KANTIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been directed against an award dated 31-1-1980 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Raipur, awarding Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No 2.

(2.) THE facts leading this appeal are as under. The husband of respondent No. 1 Shrimati Kanti Devi and father of respondent No. 2 Kumari Sanju, late Krishna Deo Prasad who was doing the job of motor mechanic, met with an accident with a bus bearing registration No. MPC 3012 belonging to the appellant and was being driven by the respondent No. 3 Rameshwari day on 4-7-1978 at about 11 a.m. It is alleged that the bus bad gone out of order at Mahasmund. It was repaired there and as it was not in order therefore, it was being brought back to Raipur Via Arang. When the bus reached near Mincha Petrol Pump it dashed against the bicycle from behind which was being driven by Krishna Deo Prasad who was going from his left side because of the said accident, it is alleged that late Krishnade Prasad came under the bus. The driver of the bus applied brake for stopping it whereupon it was seen that Krishnadeo Prasad was trying to come out of it, but in between, instead of stopped it its speed was accelerated, with the result, head of Krishnadeo Prasad not smashed by the back wheel. Krishandeo Prasad thus succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thus according to the claimants, the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver respondent No. 3, which has resulted into the alleged accident.

(3.) THE appellant M.P.S.R.T.C. and the driver respondent No. 3 the averments of the claim petition, stated that at the time of the accident the bus was running in its normal speed but late Krishnadeo Prasad wanted to cross the road and in between his bicycle dashed against the bus which has resulted into the alleged accident. It was denied specifically that the bus was being driven rashly or negligently. It was also alleged that this was a case of contributory negligence and therefore the bus driver alone cannot be held liable for rash and negligent driving.