TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, has dismissed a claim petition filed by the appellant for payment of compensation for the death of Lakshminarayana in a road accident, holding that the same did not arise out of use of a motor vehicle. The correctness of that order has been assailed by the appellants in the present case.

( 2 ) THE deceased Lakshminaryana was on 7. 5. 1992 travelling by a Super Deluxe bus owned by the respondent Corporation from Secunderabad to Mysore. When the bus had reached Baralagurki village on the Bangalore-Bellary Road at about 4. 30 a. m. , a stone hurled at windscreen of the bus, smashed the glass and hit the deceased on his forehead. The deceased was immediately rushed to Devanahalli Government hospital for treatment, from where he appears to have been referred to Bangalore. While on his way to Bangalore for further treatment, the deceased breathed his last. M. V. C. No. 1331 of 1992 was filed by the widow and two sons of the deceased for payment of compensation. Their case as set out in the claim petition was that some villagers including women and children were on the fateful day standing by the side of the road and signalling the driver to stop the bus near the place of occurrence. The claim petition further alleged that the driver of the bus instead of stopping the bus took the vehicle very close to the people standing on the roadside thereby provoking them to pelt stones at the bus. The accident it was alleged had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. It was also alleged that respondent Corporation had failed to provide adequate security to the passengers by wire meshing of the windows and/or by using toughened window glass screens. The accident having arisen out of the use of vehicle entitled the claimant to payment of compensation which was assessed at rs. 19,01,200.

( 3 ) THE claim made by the appellants was contested by the Corporation. It was, inter alia, contended that the accident in question had not occurred because of any rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver nor had the same arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle. It was further contended that the vehicle in question was a Super Deluxe Express bus with only a limited stopovers between Secunderabad and Mysore. The driver of the bus was not according to the respondent supposed to stop the bus at the place of occurrence and that the injury sustained by the deceased had been caused by a stone thrown by miscreants. The driver of the bus could not have according to the respondent avoided the accident which was described by the corporation as unexpected and unnatural.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following three issues:" (1) Whether petitioners prove that I. Lakshminarayana died while travelling in the bus No. AP 9-Z 3842 on 7. 5. 1992 at about 4. 30 a. m. near Baralagurki gate in Devanahalli taluk as a result of the negligence of the driver of that bus? (2) Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent No. 1 liable to pay compensation for the death of I. Lakshminarayana? If so, what amount? (3) What order or award?"

( 5 ) IN support of their case, the claimants examined the wife of the deceased as PW 1 and his son I. Anand as PW 2, besides relying upon documents marked Exhs. P-1 to P-18. Corporation in rebuttal examined only the driver of the bus as RW 1.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of the evidence so assembled by the parties led the Tribunal to answer the issues in the negative and dismiss the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident in question had taken place solely due to rash and negligent act of an outside agency not attributable in any way to the driver of the bus. The deposition of Varalakshmi, pw 1 was found to be of no assistance while determining the genesis of the accident as she was not one of the passengers travelling in the bus. Insofar as the deposi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document