Ramaswami, J.- The claimants in O.P. No. 225 of 1965 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, whose petition has been dismissed, are the appellants. The three appellants are the brothers and sister of one Kadirvelu who was killed in a motor accident which occurred at about 1 p.m on 25th August, 1965 in Ghantz Road, Madras. The lorry bearing registration No. MDJ 2172 owned by the 1st respondent is the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Kadirvelu was actually standing on the steps of a tea shop off the pedestrian pavement east of the road and the lorry in question swerved, went over the pavement and knocked against the said tea shop, in the process jamming Kadirvelu to death. The appellants claimed a total sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation, making the owner of the vehicle and the insurer thereof as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The two respondents contested the petition and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was not due to any negligence or rashness on the part of the dirver of the lorry, that it was an inevitable accident due to an unforeseen mechanical defect and that therefore the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal also gave a finding that if the claimants are entitled to compensation on the ground that the accident was a result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, a sum of Rs. 5,400 would be the just compensation payable to them. But the petition tame to be dismissed on the ground that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal pressing their claim.

2. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the accident was as a result of negligence. The road in question runs north to south and the width of the road as spoken to by P.W. 3, the police officer who visited the scene after the accident, is 28 feet 9 inches. On the eastern side of the road there is a pedestrian pavement, 4 feet wide. There is a tea shop called Gopal Tea Stall east of the pavement. Kadirvelu (since deceased) was standing on the steps just in front of the said tea shop, facing the same (facing eastwards) and taking tea. It was then the lorry, which proceeded from north to south in the road, swerved, jumped over the pavement a ad dashed against the tea stall, in the process of which Kadirvelu was caught between the lorry and the tea stall and crushed to death.

3. The accident is spoken to by Arumugam ( P.W. 5.) on behalf of the claimants and Kandan ( R.W. 1.) who was the driver of the lorry, on behalf of the respondents. We have also the evidence of P. W. 3, the police officer who visited the scene sometime after the accident and he has drawn a plan as per Exhibit P-I showing the tyre marks and other particulars.

4. P.W. 5 was also near the tea shop in question and be was also injured in the accident, but he escaped with minor injuries. All that he says is that while himself and the deceased were taking tea facing the tea stall and standing on the steps close to the same, the lorry came and hit them. He added that there was no sounding of horn by the lorry at about the time of the accident. R.W. 1 the driver of the lorry, stated that be was driving the lorry from north to south, that the lorry was empty (i.e.) without any load, that two bullock carts were going ahead of the lorry, that he overtook the said two bullock carts by going to his right side (western side of the road), that after he so overtook the two carts, he wanted to bring the lorry to the centre of the road, that then the steering began to wobble, that the steering wheel turned left and could not be brought to the normal position, that when he applied the brakes they failed and that therefore the vehicle got over the platform on the. easteem side of the road and dashed against the tea shop, only after which the vehicle came to a stop. P.W. 3 the police officer, stated that he found tyre marks to a distance of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document