The owner of a stage carriage vehicle is liable to compensate the claimants for the death of a passenger if the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is by the owner of a stage carriage vehicle and is directed against the award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the legal representatives of a passenger of that vehicle who died on account of an accident.

2. The bus, ORP 2630 was proceeding towards Puri in the afternoon of 14-10-1975 with passengers. It had crossed the Daya bridge at Chandanpur and after reporting at the outpost located near the Puri side of the bridge was being driven towards Puri. After a few yards from the place the road has a bend and the Puri-Patamundai bus suddenly came from the reverse direction at great speed. Seeing the fast approaching bus, the driver of Appellant's vehicle swerved the vehicle to the left side, with a view of saving the vehicle and its passengers from disaster. It had rained earlier and the road side earth was slippery. On account of application of the brakes, the vehicle skidded to the extreme left, went out of the road and toppled. As a result thereof, Ghanshyam Bala, a passenger died and several others received injuries. Appellant maintained that the vehicle was not being driven either rashly or negligently at that time. The bus had stopped at the outpost to make the T. G. R. entry and passed through the busy market area of Chandanpur and, therefore, at the crucial time bad not picked up high speed. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and if at all, it was a case of error of judgment which was very different from negligence or want of care. It is also contended that the Express bus from the reverse direction suddenly appeared and in his anxiety to save the passengers and the vehicle from total disaster, the driver tried his best to take the vehicle to the extreme left. Unfortunately, the vehicle skidded out of the road and met with the accident. In this view of the matter it is claimed that there was no negligence in driving and there could be no liability to compensate.

3. The claimants had asked for compensation of Rs. 85,000/- by alleging that the deceased was a sub-contractor for earth work, canal excavation and also earned profit out of supplies of vegetables, rice, bamboo and firewood to the workmen. It was stated that the deceased was around forty at the time of death and in normal circumstances would have remained active till the age of 70 years. His annual contribution to the family was to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and with all deductions, the acceptable claim would work out at Rs. 85,000/-.

4. Four witnesses were examined for the claimants-including the widow (P.W. 2) and the younger brother (P.W. 4). The Appellant examined a passenger (D.W. 1) and the driver (D.W. 2) and on the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal came to hold that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver and the claimants were entitled to compensation. He ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and directed the insurer to bear the burden to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-in view of the statutory limit and directed the owner to pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/-. The owner assails this direction. The claimants have asked for enhancement of the compensation by filing a cross-appeal.

5. Mr. Mohapatra for the Appellant contends that the vehicle was driven at moderate speed. When the on-coming bus was suddenly noticed, attempt was made to take the vehicle in question to the extreme left of the road for safety. The skidding was not on account of rash driving or high speed but because of sudden application of brakes on slippery ground. Since sudden action had to be taken with a view to avoiding total destruction, the situation should be viewed from that angle and the Tribunal has failed to consider the background. Reliance is placed on the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, where in paragraph 34, the Court observed:

It was thus evident that the accident happened due t