NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Compensation Case No. 42 of 1983.

(2.) The son of claimants-respondents Krishna Devi and Puranmal Sharma, namely, Madan Mohan Sharma, aged 27 years was a Professor in the Department of Commerce in Singhbhum College at Chandil under the Ranchi University. At the time of accident, he was getting Rs. 1,500 per month. On Sunday, i.e., 4.9.983, while he went to the house of Mr. M.C. Sharma, Advocate, for some urgent work and the next morning, he left for Chandil to join his duty, he boarded the bus, namely, Annapurna Bus bearing registration No. BRS 8306 owned by Annapurna Shikshit Berojgar Motor Paribahan Sahyog Samiti. On the way to Chandil when the above bus was crossing the bridge on Kuju river, it fell into the flooded river and was washed away with its passengers. Search was made and eventually the dead body of Madan Mohan Sharma was recovered on 7.9.1983, near Seraikella. The accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver. As per the claim of the claimants, the vehicle at the relevant time was alleged to be insured with the appellant insurance company. Both the owner and the insurance company contested the claim case.

(3.) The first and foremost objection from the side of the opposite parties in the claim case was that it was not an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus rather due to act of God the bus fell down into the flood water. It has also been challenged that because of flood water the passengers had never been washed away. The deceased Madan Mohan Sharma was sitting in the middle of the bus and there was no scope of washing away of the deceased Madan Mohan Sharma due to flood water. Those facts were considered by the learned Claims Tribunal when the evidence was adduced from the side of the parties. No evidence was adduced from the side of the insurance company and after scrutinising the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Following the principle of res ipsa loquitur it appears that the accident must have been caused due to the negligence of the driver as seeing the flood water also he had proceeded on the river bridge. Thus, on this point, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned award and practically on factual aspect of the matter the insurance company had got no right to challenge when the owner had contested.