Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sau. Sumanbai

S.B. Shukre, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed on 15/11/2003 by the Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short: ''the Tribunal'') in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 169 of 2001. Respondent No.1 was the original claimant, respondents No. 2 and 3 were the owner and driver of the truck - one of the vehicles involved in the accident and respondent No.4 was insurance company of the said truck. Appellant No.1 was the owner of State Transport Bus, a vehicle that was also involved in the accident and appellant No.2 was its driver at the relevant time.

Respondent No.1 was travelling by the S. T. Bus bearing registration No. MH-12/UA-9985 on 11/9/2000, which was proceeding from Barsi Takli to Murtizapur. When it came near village Sonori, at about 2.30 p.m., one truck bearing registration No. MP-20/G-155 being driven by respondent No.3 approached from the opposite direction and brushed against the driver side of the S.T. Bus. Because of such brushing against the driver''s side of the S.T. Bus, respondent No.1, who was sitting on that side, sustained injuries for which she claimed that she was entitled to receive compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of these vehicles. Therefore, she filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against these persons.

After considering the evidence brought on record by the parties to the petition and hearing of the parties, the Tribunal by judgment and award passed on 15/11/2003, partly allowed the petition and granted compensation. By this order, the Tribunal fastened 1/2 of the liability each for compensation upon appellant No.1 on one hand and the owner, driver and insurance company of the truck in question on the other hand. Not satisfied with this judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal in this Court.

I have heard Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Deoujari, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 -Insurance Company. This appeal has been already dismissed against respondents No. 2 and 3, the owner and driver of the truck in question, respectively.

Now, the only point that arises for my consideration is as follows.:

Whether the Tribunal was in error in fastening 50% of the liability to pay compensation upon respondent No.1?

Upon going through the impugned judgment and award and also the papers filed along with the memo of appeal, my answer to the point is in the negative for the reasons appearing in the paragraphs below.

It is seen from the impugned judgment and award that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that S.T. Bus driver could not be held to be rash and negligent in driving of the S.T. Bus. The Tribunal has, however, found that the S.T. Bus driver was negligent while calculating the situation to avoid dash of the truck. Driving of a vehicle includes not only handling the vehicle in motion but also taking care of the vehicle while in stationary condition. Taking this aspect into account, it appears that the Tribunal had found that the driver of the S.T. Bus was negligent in parking the Bus near the bridge. The evidence shows that the Bus driver had parked it just before a bridge over some water channel improperly, without allowing sufficient space on the other side of the vehicle for the vehicles approaching from the opposite direction to safely pass by the S. T. Bus. The Tribunal therefore, found that the driver of the S. T. Bus miscalculated the ground situation as a result of which he had contributed to the occurrence of the incident. These findings are based upon the evidence available on record and I do not think that any other inference can be reasonably drawn from this evidence. It is thus clear that while parking the S. T. Bus near the bridge, sufficient care was not taken by the driver of the S. T. Bus. Had he been cautious to park the Bus by keeping it well to the left side of the road leaving enough space for approaching vehicles to pass by safely, possibly the accident could have been avoided. So, I find no perversity or illegality in Tribunal''s conclusion that appellant too is liable equally owing to the contributory negligence of it''s driver in occurrence of the accident.

The reasons given by the Tribunal in recording said finding are based upon appreciation of evidence available on record and I do not find any perversity or patent illegality in the same. Since these are the findings of fact based upon consideration of the evidence available on record and no perversity has been seen in the approach adopted by the Tribunal, it would not be possible for this Court to make any interference with them. In the first appeal, it is fairly well settled that simply because another view is possible, though that is not the case here, it may not be adopted by this Court unless the view taken by the Court below has been seen to be not supported by evidence on record or could not be reasonably taken in the facts situation of the case. I have already observed that driving of the Bus encompasses not only handling the Bus while in motion but also taking its proper care while it is in stationary condition and here as seen from the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the S. T. Bus driver was not so careful in the later aspect of his duty.

In view of the above, no interference with the impugned judgment and award is warranted. The point is, therefore, answered in the negative.

The appeal stands dismissed.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.