KUSUMKUNVERBA WD O NARPATSINH RAMSINH ZALA Vs. UMARBHAI KAMALUDDIN SIPOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 11 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bhav- nagar in Motor Accidents Claims Case no. 46 of 1978. The claim applica- tion was filed by the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1.35.1000.00 under sec. 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 applicants 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 bea- ring no. G.T.E. 5536 came from the opposite side in a very excessive speed without blowing the horn or reducing the speed or applying the brakes and in 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 driver 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. Driver and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. It was contended that the scooterist was trying to over-take a private car and a truck and in spite of having seen the bus coming from the other sides 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.