GOBINDA PROSAD MUKHERJEE Vs. SUJIT BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Calcutta and 24-Parganas on the application of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) The respondent Sujit Kumar Bhowmik was a minor school student and was about 14 years of age on April 18, 1959. On that date at about 4.30 P. M-, after the school hours, he tried to board a private bus bearing Registration No. WBS 2631 of Route No. 42 at the bus-stop opposite National High School on the Hazra Road, But before he could board the bus, it started moving on the signal of the conductor. He lost balance and fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the bus rolled over his right leg. He sustained severe injuries on this right leg and left thigh and other parts of the body. He was removed in an unconscious state to the Ramkrishna Mission Seva Pratisthan where he was under treatment as an indoor patient for about two months. He alleged that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver and the conductor of the said offending vehicle.

(3.) The appellant, who is the owner of the said vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle, namely, the New India Assurance Company Limited, opposed the claim of the respondent by filing separate written statements. They denied that the driver and the conductor of the bus were negligent and responsible for the accident. Their case was that when the bus had left the bus-stop at Hazra Road near the National High School and gained speed, the respondent came running from behind and attempted to board the running bus negligently at the front entrance of the bus. The respondent, having failed to get hold of the metallic handle of the said entrance door, fell down and was run over by the rear left wheel of the bus. It was alleged that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent attempt of the respondent to board the running bus. It was contended by them that the claim was excessive. The further defence of the insurer was that in the event it was found liable, its maximum liability could not exceed Rupees 20,000/- under the terms of the policy.