M. R. A. Ansari, J.

( 1 ) SHANTI Devi Dutt and Pratibha Dutt, appellants in F. A. 0 s No. 95 of 1968, filed two separate applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as the Act ). According to the averments in these applications these two appellants and Kundan Lal, the husband of Shanti Devi Dutt and father of Pratibha Dutt, were waiting at the Delhi Gate Bus Stand on 4. 10. 1964 at about 4. 40 p m. for catching a bus in order to go to the Friends Colony. While they were waiting a bus bearing registration No. DLP 182, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, arrived at the bus stand and all the three of them boarded the bus. But even before they could settle themselves in the bus and even while Kundan Lal was on the top step and the other two were on the platform of the bus, the conductor of the bus pulled the bell thereby signalling to the driver of the bus to proceed and immediately the driver started the bus with a jerk as a result of which all the three of them fell down on the road. As they fell down, another bus bearing registration No. DLP 344, also belonging to the Corporation, came behind the bus DLP 182 at a high speed and ran over Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal. While Shanti Devi escaped with some injuries, Kundan Lal s head and chest were crushed and he died on the spot. Both the buses were stopped and information was conveyed to the police. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of bus No. DLP 182 as well as the driver of bus No. DLP 344. A sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 was claimed by Shanti Devi in the application filed by her by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by her and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 was claimed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt in the other application jointly filed by them by way of compensation for the financial loss sustained by them on account of the death of Kundan Lal. These claims were made against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Transport Undertaking the owners of the two buses, and against the driver and conductor of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344, hereinafter referred to as the respondents.

( 2 ) THESE petitions were opposed by the respondents on various grounds, the main ground being that the accident was not the result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver and conductor of bus No. DLP 182 or of the driver of bus No. DLP 344. According to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellants themselves. Their version of the accident was that Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal boarded the bus DLP 182, but before Partibha Dutt could board the bus, it had started and when Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal found that Pratibha Dutt was left behind, they both jumped down from the running bus and sustained injuries by falling down on the road. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation either in respect of the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi or in respect of the death of Kundan Lal. It was contended in the alternative that the compensation claimed by the appellants was excessive.

( 3 ) IN the petition filed by Shant Devi, which is petition No. 256/64, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving or act on the part of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 or any one of them ? 2. Whether the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence, if so, its effect ? 3. To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable without notice under section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ? 5. Relief. In the petition jointly filed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt which is petition No. 257/74, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document