BAHADUR SINGH Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act' here in after) has been preferred against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated December 7, 1981, by which the appellants (driver and owner of the bus) were directed to pay sum of Rs. 75,000/ - as compensation to the claimants.

(2.) THE claimants are the parents, widow and minor daughters of the deceased -victim Sultansingh. They presented an application under Section 110 -A of the Act against the appellants and the insurer, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - as compensation. The averments disclosed in the application are that at about 10.30 A.M. on January 25, 1978, Sultan Singh was going on a bicycle from Paota square to Sojati Gate. He was on the extreme left edge of the road. While he was proceeding on the bicycle, mini -bus No. RSQ 8851 came from behind, Appellant Arjun singh was driving it at that time. He was driving it so rashly and negligently that it knocked down Sultansingh. The bus even then did not stop. It rolled over Sultansingh and crushed him completely. As a result, Sultan singh sustained multiple severe injuries on his person. He did not survive and passed away instantaneously on the spot. The appellant Bahadursingh is the owner of the bus. Sultansingh was employed as Electrician Grade -II in the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation. His monthly emoluments were Rs. 352/ - in total. He was a youngman of the age of 31 years with perfect health and sound physique. In the normal course, he was to be superannuated on his attaining the age of fifty -five years. He was the only bread - -winner of the family and was contributing approximately a sum of Rs. 250/ - per month to the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -as the loss of dependency benefit at twenty five years' purchase and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental anguish and suffering. It was alleged that the accident had taken place and Sultansingh died on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The claim application was resisted by the owner, driver and the insurer through different written statements. The defence taken by the owner and the driver are identical. They admitted that the driver Arjunsingh was driving the bus at the time of the accident, but denied all other averments. According to them, Sultansingh was going ahead of the bus on a bicycle. He was on a the right side of the bus. All of a sudden, he took a turn towards his left. The driver was driving the bus slowly.

(3.) I have heard Shri R.P. Vyas learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, sand Mr. R.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer.