Rameshwar Dayal vs Kamlabai and Others

R.C. Shrivastava, J.—On 4-1-1973, one Mahavirprasad, aged about 25 years, was travelling by a passenger bus going from Gwalior towards Seondha. The bus belonged to the appellant. It was being driven by the respondent No. 5 as his servant of agent. On the way, at about 11 A.M. the bus turned turtle as a result of which Mahavirprasad sustained serious injuries of which he died on the following day. The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 filed an application for award of compensation on account of his death u/s 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondent No. 1 is his widow, the respondent No. 2 is his minor son and the respondents 3 and 4 are his parents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,160/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award, i.e. 20-2-1976. The liability of the respondent No. 6 insurance company, with which the bus stood insured, was determined at Rs. 5,000/- only.

The application for award of compensation was filed on 17-8-1973, i.e. after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of six months from the date of the accident. An application for condonation of the delay was also filed. The question of limitation was decided by Tribunal along with merits of the case. It held that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of the delay. Accordingly, the delay was condoned. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged that finding. That question has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned award. I have also perused the evidence which was adduced, with a view to assign cause for delay in making the application. The evidence is contained in the testimony of the respondent No. 3 as P.W. 1, respondent No. 1 as P.W. 7 and physician Bharatsingh (P. W. 2). It is clear from their statements, read together, that, on bearing about the accident in question and the death of Mahavir Prasad, who was a young man and an important member of the family, his father Shripal (P.W. 1) and his widow Kamlabai (P.W. 7) went into profound grief inasmuch as both of them fell ill and the widow Kamlabai (P.W.7) lost consciousness from time to time. She was also pregnant at that time and her condition became bad to worse due to the death of her young husband. For all these reasons, the compensation application could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal has dealt with the evidence elaborately in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned order and I agree with the conclusions reached order and 1 agree with the opinion of the trial Judge with regard to appreciation of evidence carries weight and it is not open to the appellate Court to disturb lightly the conclusions of facts arrived at by the trial Judge. It is also well settled that, when the appellate Court agrees with the findings of fact given by the trial Judge, it is not necessary for the appellate Court to enter into detailed discussion of the evidence. Expression of general agreement with the view taken by the trial Judge ordinarily suffices. Accordingly, I confirm the finding that there was sufficient case for condonation of the delay in filing the application and the delay was rightly condoned by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal''s finding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver has also been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Motor Vehicles do not ordinarily turn turtle. The counsel contends that it turned turtle at a road curve. Even if that be so, motor vehicles do not ordinarily turn turtle even at road curves if the curves are carefully negotiated. There is the evidence of Govindsingh (P.W.5) and Thakurdas (P.W.6) which goes to show that the bus was being driven by the driver at an excessive speed although the bus was overcrowded and that resulted in the accident in question. It is significant that the appellant did not examine the bus driver as a witness to show as to how the accident took place if not due to his negligence. I see no reason to differ from the trial Court''s view that the accident was caused due to negligence of the bus driver. Accordingly, that finding is also confirmed.

The quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court has also been questioned by the learned Counsel for the appellent, though halfheartedly. I have perused the evidence on record and I see no reason to differ from the Tribunal''s view that, in view of the evidence on record, the multiplicant would be Rs. 1800/- per year. Even if 13 is used as multiplier, the amount of compensation works out to be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, I see no reason to differ from the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal.

Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the liability of the Insurance Company would be unlimited. That contention too has no substance. u/s 95(2) (b)(ii) (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, its liability is only to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. It may also be mentioned that this plea has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal.

In the result, thus the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.