GUDU KANWAR Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal No. 142/92, filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has already been admitted by this Court on 9-7-1992. The Appeal No. 138/92 is filed by the claimants, against the same award. Hence, it is also admitted. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties waived the service of notices in Appeal No. 138/92. Both these appeals are heard finally today at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) At an early hour of 1.00 a.m. of 8-10-1987, in a vehicular accident, deceased Narpat Singh, coming on his motor cycle, was knocked down by the bus of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 'the Corporation' for short) coming from opposite direction, driven by the respondent No. 1- Driver. The widow of the deceased Smt. Gudu Kanwar, Moti Kanwar - mother of the deceased and Bhawani Singh - father of the deceased, filed a joint claim petition - No. 8/88, before the learned M.A.C. Tribunal, Bali, claiming in all Rs. 7,85,000.00 compensation from the respondents. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for the total claim of Rs. 1,67,000.00 only. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the deceased was responsible up to 25 per cent for the accident and, therefore, deducting the amount at the rate of 25 per cent for the contributory negligence of the deceased Narpat Singh, the Tribunal awarded in all Rs. 1,25,000.00 to the widow and mother of deceased, as father of the deceased died at the age of 76 years during the pendency of the trial. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants - widow and mother of deceased have filed Appeal No. 138/92 for enhancing the amount of compensation and the Corporation filed Appeal No. 142/92, stating that the Tribunal has committed an error in attributing 75 per cent negligence to the Driver of the Bus of the Corporation. According to the Corporation, the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the deceased Narpat Singh, the driver of the motor cycle and, therefore, nothing should have been awarded to the claimants.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in attributing 25% (percent) contributory negligence to the deceased. According to him, the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver, as the Bus driver was driving his Bus in excessive speed, at mid-night hour of 1.00 a.m. with full lights on. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently submitted that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the motor cyclist deceased Narpat Singh.