KUSUM KONVERBA AND OTHERS Vs. UMARBHAI KAMALUDDIN SIPOY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 11.4.1979 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 46 of 1978. The claim application was filed by the Appellants for compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/ - under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the death of Narpatsinh Ramsinh Zala, the deceased husband of Applicant No. 1 and father of a Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) ON 29.1.1978, at about 12.00 noon, the deceased was travelling from Bhavnagar and was proceeding to Sihor on a scooter which was driven by one Pinakin Bhaskerrai Bhatt. They passed through Vartej on Bhavnagar -Rajkot road and approached the trident crossing and after that crossing was crossed and when the scooter was just to enter the Rajkot side, it is the case of the Applicants, that all of a sudden, S.T. bus, bearing No. GTE 5636 came from the opposite side in a very excessive speed without blowing the horn or reducing the speed or applying the brakes and it was driven in a very haphazard and zig -zag manner. This bus was driven by the opponent No. 1. The scooterist Pinakin Bhatt had seen this bus and therefore, he had already reduced the speed of the scooter and stopped it. But it is the case that the S.T. bus came and dashed with the pillion rider of the scooter and therefore, the deceased fell down on the road. It is also the case that after the deceased fell down from the scooter, the bus ran over him and therefore, the deceased died on the spot.

(3.) THIS application was contested by the opponents - -S.T. bus driver and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. It was contended that the scooterist was trying to overtake a private car and a truck and in spite of having seen the bus coming from the other side, the scooterist proceeded and in that he lost the balance and applied the brakes and therefore, the deceased Narpatsinh fell down and received injuries and there was no touch of the bus either to the deceased or to the scooter or any part of the driver of the scooter. It was, therefore, contended that the S.T. bus driver was not negligent at all.