V. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS appeal from order is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-78, passed by Mr. J. C. Gupta, Vllth Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Claims Tribunal, Etah, in Accident Claim Case No. 6 of 1975.
(2.) CROSS-objections have also been filed on behalf of Smt. Vidyawati and another, objectors. Briefly stated, the claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Smt. Vidyawati, the widow, and Shiv Kumar Singh, the son, of the deceased Rampal Singh. The opposite parties were Rafi Ahmad, the Driver of the ill fated bus, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, and the General Managers of the UPSRTC Agra, Aligarh and Etah, Rampal Singh died as a result of the accident, which admittedly took place on 24-11-74 involving Government Road Bus no. UPB 4866. The deceased was a Police Constable and at the time of the accident he was posted at Kotwali Etah He was aged 40 years and was getting Rs. 289-50 paise per month as his salary. The petitioners were the only dependents of the deceased.' It so happened that on 24-11-74 Rampal Singh alongwith Sub Inspector Om Prakash Sharma and another Constable no. 122 Om Prakash was proceeding on a cycle on Etah- Awagarh Road in connection with the investigation of a case. All of them were on cycles. They reached near village Kamsan. U. P. Roadways Bus no. UPB 4866 was coming from the side of Awagarh. It is contended that it was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver, Rafi Ahmad, and as a result of rash and negligent driving it collided with the cycle of the deceased, who fell down and was seriously injured. Even the cycle was crushed and broken into pieces. An attempt to get the bus stopped was made but Rati Ahmad ran away alongwith the bus, subsequently he was taken into custody near the Bus Stand. A report was lodged in the Kotwali. Rampal Singh was brought to the District Hospital. Etah, where he was admitted and treated. Then he was taken to S. N. Medical College, Agra, and was admitted in Surgical Ward. He, however, could not be saved and succumbed to his injuries on 27-11-74. An amount of Rs. 75,900/-was claimed by way of compensation. Opposite party no. 1, the Driver, admitted the fact of the accident by Bus no. UPB 4866, but his contention was that he was neither rash nor negligent. He was taking the bus from Firozabad to Kamsan, at about 1.15, when he saw three constables and one Sub Inspector coming on their cycles from the opposite direction. A milk tanker was also coming from the opposite direction. It was occupying the whole road. Therefore, opposite party no. 1 had to swerve his vehicle towards the left and the Constables etc. were lost from his sight. When the tanker came near his bus, suddenly one Constable moved his cycle and came infront of the bus and the accident could not be averted. He brought his bus to Etah where the Sub Inspector arrested him. It was also contended that he was in the employment of the U. P. Government Roadways at the time of accident and the amount claimed is exaggerated.
(3.) SEPARATE written statements were filed by other opposite parties. The age of the deceased was not admitted although the fact of the accident was admitted. It was also admitted that the Driver was in the employment of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). It was denied that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the contention was that the accident took place because in averting collision with the milk tanker the Driver moved towards his left when suddenly the deceased came with his cycle in front of the bus and received the impact. The Tribunal struck three issues in this case as follows :- 1.Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Bus no. UPB 4866 ? 2.If so, to what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 3.To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? ;