Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
P.S. Patankar, J.
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Vs.
PISHORI LAL - Respondent
F.A. No. 293 of 1982
Decided on : 20-03-1992
For the Appellant : B.P. Apte
For the Respondent: G.L. Puri
The driver of a vehicle has a duty to drive with care and attention, and is liable for any damages caused by his negligence.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - NEGLIGENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - DAMAGES - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
A bus and an oil tanker collided, causing extensive damage to the tanker. The tanker owner filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, alleging negligence on the part of the bus driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus, and that this negligence caused the accident. The court also found that the tanker owner suffered loss due to the accident to the extent of Rs. 34,626/- and of Rs. 5,000/- as the tanker was idle.
Issues: 1. Whether the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus, and whether this negligence caused the accident. 2. Whether the tanker owner suffered loss due to the accident and, if so, to what extent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus, and that this negligence caused the accident, based on the evidence of the tanker driver and the panchanama, which showed that the bus was on the wrong side of the road and had brake marks of 12 meters. 2. The court held that the tanker owner suffered loss due to the accident to the extent of Rs. 34,626/- for the repairs to the tanker and Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of earnings while the tanker was idle, based on the evidence of the tanker owner, the garage owner who repaired the tanker, and the panchanama.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the bus owner, upholding the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and awarding compensation of Rs. 39,500/- to the tanker owner.
JUDGMENT :
P.S. Patankar, J.
1. The appellant is the owner of bus No. MYG 4272 and the respondent is the owner of the oil tanker (hereinafter called 'tanker') bearing No. MHT 2242. On 1.11.1977 the bus was proceeding from Pune to Bombay and the tanker from Bombay to Pune. Near Village Kon, Taluka Banvel, District Raigad, the accident took place between these two vehicles. The tanker suffered extensive damage. Therefore, the respondent made an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alibag-Raigad, claiming Rs. 40,126/- as compensation for the damage caused to the tanker.
2. The respondent alleged that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the same and was responsible for the accident. He further contended that the tanker was idle for a long time and, therefore, there was loss of earnings.
3. The appellant filed written statement and contended that the driver of the tanker was rash and negligent in driving it. It was denied that the driver of the bus was rash and/or negligent in driving the bus. It was further contended that damage or compensation claimed was excessive.
4. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal held that driver of bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and has caused the accident. The learned Judge further held that the respondent suffered loss due to the accident to the extent of Rs. 34,626/- and of Rs. 5,000/- as the tanker was idle. Therefore, the learned Judge granted total compensation of Rs. 39,500/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the respondent.
5. The appellant in this appeal has raised two points for my consideration:
(i) The learned advocate contended that the driver of the tanker was rash and negligent in driving it and was responsible for the accident, and
(ii) He further contended that the court below has granted excessive compensation to the respondent and the respondent has failed to prove the same.
6. I have gone through the entire evidence on record. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent entered the witness-box at Exh. 26 and deposed that he served the notice on the appellant on 5.11.1977 at Exh. 28 claiming damages. The appellant replied by Exh. 29 dated 8.11.1977. Again the respondent sent notice dated 25.4.1978 at Exh. 31 claiming damages and alleging negligence of the bus driver. There was no reply by the appellant. He has further deposed that accident occurred because of the negligence of bus driver. I find that there is practically no cross-examination on this aspect. Similarly, respondent examined the tanker driver by name Kashiram Budhiram Yadav at Exh. 38. He has stated that he was driving the vehicle on the collect side of the road at the speed of 30 to 35 km. The bus came from wrong side and hit his vehicle on the front. The bus had travailed 10 to 12 feet on the wrong side. There was also brake mark to the extent of 10 to 12 metres. He has also stated in the cross-examination that he applied brakes and slowed down his vehicle. The suggestion put to him in cross-examination was that he was at high speed as he was trying to overtake one truck and, therefore, it went to the wrong side and hit the bus. But that was denied. He also denied that the bus was stationary. His evidence further shows that he was not prosecuted for the accident. His evidence, therefore, shows that the tanker was on correct side. It was not going at high speed while the bus was on wrong side and was driven at excessive speed. On behalf of the appellant, the driver of the bus by name Kupayya Rama, at Exh. 39, was examined. He has stated that he saw the tanker near culvert. It was at high speed and he applied the brakes and halted the vehicle. The tanker was trying to overtake the truck and at that time it dashed against the bus lifting it towards the right side. He has admitted that he was prosecuted for the accident, but was acquitted. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there were markings of road dividers. Further in the cross-examination h
