Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. PW 1, the petitioner in O.P. No. 86 of 1980, deposed that the bus left Pulivendla at about 3 p.m. and met with an accident at a distance of about 3 km. from Pulivendla. At that time, the bus was overcrowded and about 100 passengers were travelling in the bus. The bus dashed against a cuivert and, due to the impact, it jumped to a height of 2 feet and thereafter touched the ground with a jerk. PW 2 also deposed to the same effect. PWs 1 and 2 stated that both of them had become unconscious due to the accident. RW 1 is the Traffic Inspector working in the A.P.S.R.T.C. He was travelling in the bus on that day. He deposed that, after the bus passed through Pulivendla, it was stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 km. from Pulivendla for the purpose of checking tickets. After the check was over, the bus started. After travelling 2 or 3 furlongs, there was some sound and the bus fell down. He stated that he did not observe whether the bus had fallen on the culvert. The driver, RW 2, stated that the bus was overloaded at the time of accident. When the bus was nearing the bridge which was 10 feet in width, he heard some sound and applied the brakes. According to him, the brakes did not work and, in the meanwhile, he saw a bullock-cart coming in the opposite direction. Therefore, he swerved the bus to the left. Then the bus dashed against the culvert and fell on the left side. Due to the accident, some persons travelling in the bus died and some others sustained injuries. Having regard to the evidence referred to above, there can be no doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus.