ARATI GHOSH Vs. SUDHARANI MITRA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order and Award passed by Sri G. C. Biswas, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. Case No. 290 of 1974, whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation to the claimant - respondent for death of her son Swapan Mitra. Admittedly, the victim was a passenger of a bus bearing registration No. WBS 3194. The said accident took place on dated 25.6.74 at about 8.20 p.m. The deceased at the relevant time was aged about 20 years. The said bus was proceeding along Bengachia Bridge from West to East at a very high speed. The deceased was standing on the footboard and the bus tried to overtake a tram car bearing No. 403 by its right side. It dashed against the front of the tram car as a result whereof the victim was crashed between the bus and the tram car and fell down on the tramway track. Despite the same the vehicle was not stopped by the driver and he fled away. The deceased was immediately removed to R. G. Kar Medical College Hospital by the driver and conductors of the tram carat 8.25 p.m. and he died there at 8.50 p.m. The applicant - respondent claim a sum of Rs. 75,000.00 together with interest by way of compensation in terms of section 110 CC of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Before the learned Tribunal several witnesses were examined and on the basis of the materials brought on record, the learned Tribunal Held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - by way of compensation out of which the insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00, while the opposite party No. 1 appellant was directed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand). The learned Tribunal also directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum be paid from 1.4.80 till realisation.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised only a short question in support of this appeal. The leained counsel submits that from a perusal of evidence of a fellow passenger, Susanta Ghose, it would appear that the victim was travelling on the rear footboard of the bus, which goes to show that he was also careless while travelling therein. The learned Counsel in this connection has also drawn our attention to the finding of the learned Tribunal and submitted that no consideration at all has been made to the case of contributory negligence on the part of the victim. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00, whereas directing the owner of the vehicle opposite party No. 1 appellant to pay the balance sum of Rs. 20,000.00.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that it is a case where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is attracted.