MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated April 29, 1988 by which the claimant-respondents have been awarded Rs. 1,19,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per month. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

2. On December 10, 1982, the deceased Manilal (husband of the respondent No. 2, father of the respondents No, 3, 4 and 5 and brother of the respondent No. 1), 28 years old, was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. RRM 6708 belonging to the appellant No. 1. He was going from Banswara to Bhrin-thor. At about 7.00 P.M., the bus reached at Bhrinthor His dhoti got stuck with the door of the bus while he was getting down therefrom and the bus started before the dhoti could be unfastened. As a result thereof, he was dragged for some distance and received serious injuries and died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 25-30 per day as a Carpenter. The appellants and the respondent No. 6 filed their joint reply admitting that the said Bus No. RRM. 6708 was owned by the appellant No. 1 and on December 10, 1982, it was. being driven by the respondent No. 6. It was pleaded by them that no accident took place with the bus when it stopped at. Bhrinthor. In the alternative, it was also stated that no accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Necessary issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara. Afier hearing them, the learned Tribunal, held that the accident took place with the bus of the appellants, the deceased received fatal injuries in the accident, he was 28 years old and awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,19,000/-.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-non-petitioners that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seriously erred in. holding that the accident took place with the Bus No. RRM 6708, in the said accident Manilal received fatal injuries and she claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,19,000/ as compensation. He further contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation without any evidence on record, post-mortem report has been read in evidence without recording the statement of the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manila!, there was no question of movement of the bus after the dhoti of Manilal got stuck with the bus and it was well proved from the evidence on record that Manilal was murdered. He also contended that the deceased Manilal was not living with the claimants. He lastly contended that the claim petition was time barred.

4. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents duly supported the judgment and award under appeal.

5. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether the death of Manilal was accidental or homicidal. Manilals brother, Devilal P.W. 1. has deposed that Manilal died in an accident. So are the statements of his widow Pushpa P.W. 2 and the eye-witness Magji P. W. 3. Magji P.W. 3 was travelling with the deceased Manilal in the same bus. He has deposed that he was knowing deceased Manilal, he belonged to the village Bari Sadri, about 6-7 years ago be boarded the bus along with the deceased Manilal and Ratanlal from Banswara for Bhrinthor, all of them purchased tickets, the bus stopped at Bhrinthor, he got down from the bus, then Ratanlal and lastly, Manilal, his dhoti got stuck with the door of the bus while he was getting down from it, the bus moved, it was not stopped despite hue and cry for the same and as a result thereof, Manilal received injuries and died on the spot. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in his cross-examination. His testimony cannot be discarded simply on the ground that he. was not examined by the police. It may be mentioned here that the ticket of the disputed bus was found in the packet of the deceased by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document