Compensation awarded by tribunal upheld.

Ramamurthi, J.- This appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”)against its decision awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation payable to one Sayari Bai, the respondent in this appeal and the claimant before the Tribunal in M.O.P. No. 3 of 1968 on its file. Sayari Bai’s only son Rupa alias Rupraj, aged about 12 years, met with his death as a result of a bus accident in the Bazaar Road, Ambattur, opposite to the State Bank of India on 18th October, 1967 at about 3-45 p.m. M.A. Rahim, the 1st respondent in the petition, is the owner of the bus M S W 2471 involved in the fatal accident and Madras Motor and General Insurance Co., is the 2nd respondent. Sayari Bai, the mother of the unfortunate boy, made the claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She claimed compensation of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 5,000 for expenses, pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 In support of her case, the father of the boy and One Doraisami Iyengar, a a retired teacher of the school, were examined as witnesses, while on the other side the bus driver, the conductor and the Joint Regional Transport Officer were examined. P.W. 2, the teacher, has given evidence that he was standing opposite to the State Bank of India at about 4 p.m. on 18th October, 1967, that school children were coming out of the school, that the bus was going fast from south to north towards the bus stand and the boy was run over by the bus. There is no effective cross-examination and nothing is suggested to him that the accident happened in any other manner, that the boy was run over on account of the boy’s negligence and no theory is suggested to this witness to make out that the driver of the bus was not negligent and that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the boy suddenly running across the bus or at the rear side of the bus. In the counter of the bus owner it was stated that the accident occurred because the boy suddenly darted across the road and got himself involved in the accident and that the accident was due to the negligence of the boy. Virtually the 2nd respondent adopted the counter of the 1st respondent. In the course of the evidence, the driver and the conductor developed a new theory that while the bus was being driven at a slow speed, the boys were chasing the deceased and in that process the deceased ran and dashed himself at the rear end of the bus, sustained injuries and, as a result thereof, died. The post mortem certificate Exhibit A-2 shows that the boy had sustained 19 injuries, of which injuries Nos. 13 to 16 were fractures of the thigh bone, ribs, etc. The Judge has adverted to the discrepancy between the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 as well as the discrepancy revealed in the evidence of R.W.2 who gave evidence in the criminal case in which the bus driver was prosecuted. From the evidence it is clear that the driver was clearly guilty of gross negligence and rashness in driving the bus. The area is a school zone and just the time the boys were, coming out of the school and therefore the bus driver should have been extremely cautious and careful and mere regulation of speed by itself even if true would not avail. P.W. 2, the teacher, has given clear evidence. The evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 shows that they did not even see the boy at the time of the accident and in the cross-examination it is established that they were unable to explain how the accident occurred. It is some theory which they developed in the course of the evidence. Admittedly, there was no passenger in the bus and it is clear that the driver has driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner in a fast speed and without any care and caution, which resulted in the death of the boy. We have perused the evidence of the bus driver and the conductor and we have no hesitation to say that their evidence is unreliable. The ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document