HUSSAIN Vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPO-RATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant was travelling in the bus operated by the first opposite party from Valasaravakkam to Parrys on 1.10.1997 and sustained injury on his left leg. The complainant was badly hurt. He was taken by the first opposite party for treatment to the second opposite party where he was attended to by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties did not properly treat him and simply stated that it was small swelling. But, on the other hand, the complainant has sustained fracture. The complainant is a tailor by profession. On account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is not able to carry on his profession and earn as before. Therefore, on the ground that the opposite parties are guilty of negligence and deficiency in service, the present complaint is laid.

(2.) THE first opposite party has filed a version admitting that there was an incident in the bus that was proceeding to Parrys and that suddenly there was a big noise and it was found that the spring plate placed on the rear side had broken loose and pierced through the surface near the rear wheel and the passenger sitting in the seat above the rear wheel was injured. They further say that the crew took the passengers who got injured to the nearby hospital for treatment. Thus it was an act of God. It was not due to improper maintenance of the bus. There was no deficiency in service. Hence, the first opposite party denies their liability to pay any compensation.

(3.) THE points that arise for determination are: (1) Whether there is deficiency in service? (2) Whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant?