KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. PRAHLAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are directed against one and the same award of the Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated January 21, 1978, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment. By the award aforesaid, the Tribunal dismissed the claims of the appellants. One of the appeals has been filed by the injured while the other has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-victim.

(2.) RECAPITULATED briefly, the relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant Govindsingh and his brother-in-law (sister's husband) Purshottam Lal were going on a scooter from Udaipur to Nathdwara on June 15, 1975. Govindsingh was driving the scooter while Purshottam Lal was sitting on the pillion. When the scooter reached near Mazera bus stand where there is a sharp steep curve, the R.S.R.T.C. bus R.S.M. 7465 came with a traffic speed from the opposite direction. Seeing the bus, Govindsingh took the scooter in the left side on the Kaccha portion. Respondent Prahlad was driving the bus. He could not control the bus and the bus dashed against the scooter. Govindsingh fell down. He sustained some injuries. The impact of the collision was so forceful that Purshottam Lal was thrown away at some distance. He sustained multiple injuries and got badly injured. The bus stopped a few yards away. Some of the passengers got down from the bus and put Purshottam Lal in it. Govindsingh also boarded the bus. The bus was taken to General Hospital, Udaipur, where the doctor on duty declared Purshottam Lal dead. The injuries of Govindsingh were also examined. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Prahlad. The deceased Purshottam Lal was serving as a Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Udaipur. His monthly income was nearly Rs. 1,700/-. He was the sole bread-earner in his family. Purshottam Lal was a middle aged man of 49 years in age with sound physique and perfect health. Normally he would have remained alive-for upto the age of 75 years. Govindsingh presented a claim for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,300/- as compensation while the legal representatives of deceased Purshottam Lal (who are his widow, son and daughters) claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- compensation. The claims petitions were resisted by the driver as well as the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It was admitted by them that a collision had taken place between the scooter and the bus, but it was denied that the collision took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. It was alleged that there is a sharp steep curve at the place of occurrence. The bus was negotiating the curve on the height while the scooter was coming down on the slope. The scooter was behind a private bus which was also coming from Udaipur and was proceeding towards Nathdwara. The driver of the scooter made an attempt to over-take the bus. In that attempt, when he over-took the bus and proceeded further, he could not keep the balance and the scooter dashed against the bus. Thus the collision had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by tis driver Govindsingh. The quantum of compensation was also challenged. Both the claim petitions were consolidated for hearing. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) THE sole question before me in these appeals is whether the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by its driver Govindsingh (claimant) is incorrect and requires correction? It was vehemently contended by Mr. N.P. Gupta-learned Counsel for the appellants that the whole approach of the Tribunal was erroneous and unsustainable. It was argued that there is the direct testimony of the claimant Govind Singh (AW 2) and AW 4 Khyali Lal, who have stated as to how the accident had taken place. AW 4 Khyali Lal was travelling in the bus of the Corporation. He was an independent witness not interested in either party. The Tribunal crept into an error in discarding his direct testimony. It was also argued that AW 2 Govindhsingh driving the scooter. His testimony was also wrongly disbelieved. When the site inspection was made, scooter, was found on the left extreme margin in the Kaccha portion of the road. The road, where the accident took place, was a National Highway nearly 20 feet wide. Since the accident had taken place on the extreme left side, it should be inferred that it had taken place due to the faulty driving of the bus by its. driver Prahlad. It was also argued that the whole story of the scooter overtaking the bus was concocted and after-thought. The Tribunal gave undue importance to the testimony of NAW 2 Khubilal.