TEJ RAJ Vs. MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the claimant against the award dated 20-8-1996 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No. 60/1992 whereby the claim application for compensation in relation to damage to the property was disallowed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the claimant submitted a claim application seeking an amount of Rs. 19070.00 as compensation against the non-applicants with the averments that on 2-7-1989 at about 5.30 p.m. driver of his bus bearing registration No. RJH- 2961 was driving the bus from Pratapgarh to Chhoti Sadri carrying conductor of the vehicle and so also the passengers. At Jnakhamiya Bridge, because of the cattle, the vehicle was stopped then Mohan Singh driver of the bus bearing registration No. RRB-6958 came driving the bus in a high speed rashly and negligently and hit the applicant's bus RJH-2961 on the rear side which resulted in breaking of the ladder, two glasses and substantial dent on the rear side. The applicant detailed out the expenses incurred by him in the repairs and so also other losses and claimed an amount of Rs. 19070.00. The claim for compensation was submitted against the non-applicants for the non-applicant No. 1 Mohan Singh plying the bus of the non-applicants No. 2 and 3 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC' for short). The applicant also claimed interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) A reply of denial was submitted by the non-applicants No. 2 and 3 R.S.R.T.C. The non-applicants denied the occurrence and denied rash and negligent driving by their driver. It was also submitted that the applicant was maintaining enmity because of the timings of the two buses and therefore exorbitant claim has been filed. The non-applicant No. 1 Mohan Singh has also filed a separate reply with ditto submissions. The learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh framed five issues for determination of the questions involved in the case to the following effect :