- (1.) THESE appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, preferred by two sets of claimants, are directed against the decision of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal. Indore, rejecting their claim for compensation for the death of two of the passengers, Jinendra Kumar and Basantilal, arising from ,a motor accident.
(2.) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows:-On the 13th February, 1965, there was a ghastly accident on the mortakka Bridge over the Narbada resulting in the tragic death of eight persons. It is as very large bridge, having a length of 2600 ft. with twenty-four spans each of 108 ft. Motor bus No. MPB 1492, owned by respondent No. 1 Ibrahim and driven by deceased Lal Khan, was carrying eight passengers en route Ujjain-Onkare-shwar via Indore. The bus entered the bridge near about 11-30 A. M. , and after it had crossed as many as twenty-one spans of the bridge, the driver suddenly applied the brakes; but the bus went forward with a jerk, suddenly veered across the bridge to the off side, dashed against two or three railings, crashed through the railings, and fell down off the bridge from a height of about 50 ft. into the rocky bed of the river, resulting in the death of the driver and seven passengers including Jinendra Kumar and basantilal. The sole survivor was one of the passengers, A. W. 3 Sajjan singh, who had a miraculous escape.
(3.) THE first set of claimants, Smt. Sushila Devi and others, the heirs of Jinendra kumar, alleged that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the driver. In support of that plea, they gave the following particulars of negligence: "after the bus actually entered the bridge and was crossing the Narbada river and was nearing the southern end of the bridge, it suddenly ran into the railings on the right-hand side of the bridge and crashing through the same fell into the rocky bed of the river about 45 feet below. " The second set of claimants, Smt. Kamalabai and others, however, alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the owner of the bus, i. e. , respondent No. 1. The particulars of negligence pleaded by them were these: "at the time when the sad and horrible accident took place, the condition of the said bus was also not in perfect order. The bus was moving then without a conductor ,at the time of the accident. The axle of the bus was also not in order. It is learned by the applicants that the axle was broken on the Narmada River bridge and due to this, bus could not be controlled and ultimately it fell down. ";