MANJU RAI Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISC. Appeal No. 853 of 1994 has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 9 of 1989 vide award dated 10. 8. 1994 passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisen, while Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed Misc. Appeal No. 982 of 1994 aggrieved of the said award.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the appeals are thus: Late Dr. Vikas Chandra Rai, aged 36 years, a Lecturer in Commerce Department in Bhopal University, was drawing Rs. 4,325. 25 as his gross pay, died in a motor accident on 27. 12. 1988, when he was travelling as a passenger in stage carriage bus No. MPH 7893. On the fateful day the passenger bus was being driven by Omar Khan, respondent No. 4, during the course of employment of M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent No. 3 in Misc. Appeal No. 853 of 1994. At about 7. 00 a. m. when the said bus reached between the villages Naktara and Khandera in Raisen District, it collided with truck No. CPL 6583, owned by M. P. Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, driven by Bali-ram Rai, respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 5 (in M. A. No. 853 of 1994 ). Because of the collision, deceased Vikas Chandra Rai received severe injuries, who was taken to hospital but succumbed to injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased, that is, appellant No. 1, widow, appellant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children and appellant Nos. 4 and 5, parents, filed an application on 17. 3. 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the owner, driver of the two offending vehicles and also against insurer of truck No. CPL 6583, for compensation of Rs. 60,91,600. The claim was contested by respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement took a defence that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the bus driver. On 27. 12. 1988, at about 7. 00 a. m. when the truck reached between villages Khandera and Naktara, the driver of the truck saw the passenger bus coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed from Raisen side going towards Begumganj side. Seeing this the respondent No. 2 stopped the truck on the extreme road side towards its left keeping its dim lights on as it was foggy. The cleaner of the truck got down to answer the call of nature; but, as the bus was not in control of respondent No. 4, the bus driver, it dashed against the right front side of the standing truck, which after dash, left the road and stopped about 85 paces away in the fields. The accident in the circumstances was for no fault of the respondent No. 2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their written statement denied any negligence on the part of the respondent No. 3 and took the stand that the accident was inevitable due to negligent driving of the truck.

(3.) TO prove negligence of the drivers of the two offending vehicles, the appellants did not examine any eyewitness to the occurrence. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also did not lead any evidence. The respondent No. 4 did not enter the witness-box to establish the defence that the accident did not occur due to rash or negligent driving of the bus. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to establish the defence, examined respondent No. 2 only as NAW 1.