RAJENDAR KUMAR Vs. M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1978 (Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bhopal v. Rajendra Kumar and another).

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to these appeals are these:

(3.) THE first question for decision is whether the accident was due to the negligence on the part of respondent no. 2, the driver, who was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. This part has been dealt with by the Tribunal under issue no. 1, the discussion whereof is contained in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the impugned award. We have been taken through the evidence of Rajendra Kumar (AW 1), the claimant; Gaud Shankar (AW 2) and Kailash Narayan (AW 3) on the claimant's side, and Bhagwati Prasad (N.A.W-1) and Munshi Khan (NA W 2), the driver and the conductor, respectively, on the respondent's side. It is an admitted position that the bus had collided with a standing truck. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses on the claimant's side, it is clearly made out that all these witnesses were the inmates of the bus at the time when the accident in question took place. It is borne out from the evidence of these witnesses that the truck with which the bus had collided was standing on the correct side of the road; that the driver was driving the bus at such a very high velocity that the bus collided with the truck; had the driver on seeing the truck reduced the speed, the accident could have been avoided. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent and natural; nothing could be brought out in their cross-examination so as to impeach their credibility, nor in the rebuttal evidence consisting of the driver and the conductor, referred to hereinabove, nothing cogent could be made out so as to discard the testimony of these witnesees on the claimant's side. The learned Counsel for the Corporation was unable to point out any cogent reason to persuade us to disagree with the conclusion of the Tribunal on the finding regarding negligence. We are, therefore inclined to accept the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident took place on account the negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 2 Bhagwati Prasad. Since we are affirming the finding of the Tribunal in this respect, it is not necessary for us to re-write the effect of the evidence reiterate the reasonings of the Tribunal.