MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD Vs. PREM BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by M.P.S.R.T.C. (hereinafter referred as to the Corporation), against award dated 21-7-1980, in Claims Case No. 23/78, whereby respondents 1 to 4, were awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 30-6-1978 till the date of recovery.

(2.) ON 25-1-1978 at about 4-5 a.m., deceased Punaram was coming to Raipur on his bullock-cart. There were other bullock-carts going ahead of his bullock-cart. It is said that bus belonging to the Corporation and driven by respondent No. 5 was also proceeding to Raipur. The said bus was driven rashly and negligently as also without light. The said bus dashed against hind portion of the bullock-cart. Due to this, Punaram was thrown ahead from his own bullock-cart and was sandwiched between his own cart and the other cart going ahead of his cart. He received grievous injuries and was, therefore, shifted to hospital where he died on the same night at 8.30 p.m. Respondents one to four claimed Rs. 1,01,000/- as compensation for the death of Punaram and damages to the bullock-cart. The Corporation denied its liability. It was submitted that the diver of the bus blew horns which baffled the deceased. Due to which, be drove his bullock to the left. The cart suddenly became obliquely horizontal on the road. The bus driver, therefore could not bring the vehicle to stand still and it dashed against the cart. The unfortunate accident was thus out come of composite negligence of the cart driver and the driver of the bus. The claim for dauages was also denied.

(3.) LLEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident took place by the bus. He submitted that there was a truck coming from the opposite direction. The bus in question was, therefore, brought to halt behind the cart driven by the deceased. Since the light of the bus was put out, the bullocks of the cart got scared and carried the cart in the middle of the road. The truck coming from other direction bit the deceased. Therefore, the award should not have been passed against the Corporation. It was submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive.