Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The present appeal arises out of dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court below has rejected the Claim Petition No. 33 of 1981 on the finding that the appellant has failed to prove that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and the appellant was injured as a result thereof. The other issues have been decided in favour of the appellant.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. Claimant on 4.2.1981 reached Hathras Roadways Bus Stand by travelling through Roadways bus. Claimant stepped down from the bus. The Roadways workshop and the Roadways bus stand are separated by a wall. The separating wall fell down suddenly and it caused compound fracture on the left leg of the claimant. A claim petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents on the allegations that bus No. URB 231 was standing in the workshop at a slopy place in gears for repairs with starting switches on. Suddenly a monkey entered into the bus and it appears that the body of the monkey pressed starting switch button and consequently the bus started and hit the boundary wall in between the workshop and the bus stand. As a consequence thereof the bricks of the wall fell down and the petitioner was injured. According to the respondents it was a simple case of vis major (act of God).
(3.) The Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was decided against the appellant by holding that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the appellant and it was held that the claim petition was maintainable and claim of Rs. 50,000 towards damages is not exaggerated. However, the claim petition was dismissed in view of the findings recorded under issue No. 1.;