CECELIA FERRAO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, South Kanara dated 31-7-1968 in Claim Case No. 5 of 1964.

(2.) On 29-11-1963 one Cyprian Ferrao of Mangalore was proceeding towards Panambur from Mangalore in the West Coast Road at about 7 P.M when it was drizzling and at a place called Kottar junction, on his way, which is nearly 4 milts from Mangalore he was going in a down gradient. From the opposite direction one bus bearing No. MYX 4854 and another bus, both belonging to Shankar Vittal Motor Company, were coming at a distance. Due to collision between the bus MYX 4854 and the bicycle on which Cyprion Ferrao was going, Cyprian Ferrao was thrown down out of the bicycle as a result of which he sustained 18 injuries, most of them being abrasions. The bicycle that he was riding was slightly damaged. Cyprian Ferrao was removed to the Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore in the bus that was coming behind, where he died on the same night. The medical evidence in this case is that the death of Cyprian Ferrao was due to shock and subdural haemorrhage on account of injuries sustained by him. It could be gathered from the medical evidence that the fatal injury was a fracture on the base of the skull starting from the anterior part of the right middle fossa and extending on to the anterior fossa

(3.) The widow of Cyprian Ferrao namely Cecelia Ferrao and her children seven in number filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 read with Rule 343 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 claiming compensation of Rs.37,857/-against the managing Director of the Shanker Vittal Motor Company Ltd; Attavar, Mangalore and the Branch Manager of the Indian Mutual Assurance Society Ltd., Mangalore, which was the insurer of the vehicle, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the District Judge, South Kanara. The Tribunal, after recording evidence on both the sides, by its order dated 29-9-1965, came to the conclusion that the accident was not due to negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question. The present appellants filed M.F.A.132/66 before this Court. This Court set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remanded the case with a direction that the case should be re-heard afresh after recording such evidence as may be adduced by the parties. After it was remanded, the Tribunal, which was presided by another Judge, recorded further evidence and after considering the evidence came to the same conclusion and passed the judgment under appeal. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed this appeal.