Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of the petitioners, respondents 1 to 4 herein, is that they are the husband, minors son. minor daughter and minor son of the deceased Kamalam, that on 16-7-1979 at about 7.45 am. the deceased was travelling in a town bus plying in route No. 32 C and bearing registration No. TNE 5517 along Goods Shed Road, that when the bus approached the bus stop near the junction of Big Bazaar Street and Goods Shed Road, west of St. Michael's High School, she got down from the bus, that before she could stabilize herself on the road, the conductor instructed the driver to move the vehicle and accordingly the driver started the bus rashly and negligently, with the result that Kamalam was knocked down and dragged along by the body of the bus, that in that process she had sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to them in the CMC, Hospital, that respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and conductor of the bus, while respondents 3 and 4 are the owner and insurer respectively and that they are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioners, respondents 1 to 4 herein.

13, Now, let this Court consider the evidence with respect to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. As already noted, respondents 1 to 4 herein are the husband, two minor sons and a minor daughter of the deceased Kamalam. They alleged that on 16-7-1979 at about 7-45 am. the deceased was travelling in a town bus plying in route No. 32 C and bearing registration No. TNE 5517 along Goods Shed Road. When the bus approached the bus stop near the junction of Big Bazaar Street and Goods Shed Road, west of St. Michael's High School, she got down from the bus. Before she could stabilize herself on the road, the conductor instructed the driver to move and accordingly, the driver started the bus rashly and negligently, with the result that Kamalara was knocked down and dragged along by the body of the bus. In that process, she had sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to them in the C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore. Respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and conductor of the bus, while respondents 3 and 4 are the owner and insurer respectively. They are eligible to pay a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 4 herein.

18. PW 2 admits in cross examination that there is no bus stop near the junction of Goods Shed Road and Big Bazaar Street. Usually, when the bus approaches the police umbrella, it would be slowed down and the passengers would alight from the bus. On that day, the bus stopped and the conductor announced that persons bound for C.M.C. Hospital could get down. The most important question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether the crew of the bus are responsible for negligence for the occurrence took place in a place where the bus had been stopped by the driver of the vehicle and it was not a bus stop. Even at the outset this Court feels it necessary to observe that it is not necessary for a bus to stop at the bus stop only so as to assess the negligence or otherwise of the driver of the vehicle, In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence of PW 2, an independent witness, that though there is no official bus stop near the road junction, it is not uncommon for the conductor to stop the bus and allow the passengers so get down at some places. When the bus was stopped, Kamalam got down. Before she alighted, the driver started moving the bus on instructions from the conductor and Kamalam fell down. This clearly shows that the occurrence which is held to be a negligent one does not lose its rigor merely on the ground that it had taken place not at the bus stop but at. a place where the bus was stopped. In other words, rashness and negligence get itself attached to the act of the driver as well as the conductor even at the place where the bus is stopped, even though it is not a bus stop. For reasons best known to the crew as well as the passengers, the bus was stopped in that place as indicated above and as disclosed by the evidence available on record. We are concerned whether the elements of rashness and negligence are available in so far as the acts of RWs 1 and 2 are concerned. Their evidence disclosed that they wanted to completely get their responsibility absolved by saying that they did not notice actually the victim getting down from the bus at the place of the occurrence. The evidence clearly discloses that it was at the time when the deceased was having one foot on the foot-board of the bus and another foot on the ground, that whistle had been given by the conductor of the bus and the driver started to move the bus It is obligatory on the part of the driver of the vehicle also to see whether any person is getting down from the bus before he starts to move the bus. In the instant case, it is clear that the driver of the vehicle ignored to take such precaution and that had resulted in the accident causing the death of the victim in this case. Rashness and negligence have been squarely proved in this case and as such the persons responsible to pay the compensation have to pay on the basis of the finding given by the Tribunal.

21. Before parting with this case, while confirming the Tribunal's findings, this- Court wants to observe for guidance of the crew of the buses. The life and limb of the passengers are to be borne in mind by the crew, namely, the driver and the conductor of a bus. It is not for merely mechanically driving the bus and for collecting the fares from passengers that both of them are employed in a bus. The driver of the bus has to look into both the entrances, front exit as well as rear exit, before actually starting the vehicle, even though whistle might have been given by the conductor inadvertently without noticing both exits due the pressure of collection of fares from the passengers or due. to his noting in the memo, as in the instant case before us. But the fundamental duty of both the driver as well as the conductor is to verify specifically whether any passenger is getting into the bus or getting down from the bus before actually the bus is moved from the bus stop where it is stopped, irrespective of the fact whether that place of stopping is a bus stop or not. In the instant case, it is clear that no such precaution was taken both by the driver as well as the conductor of the bus, resulting in the death of the deceased by not only causing injuries but also dragging her to a distance of 10 feet from the place where the deceased was getting down from the bus. The certified copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report Exhibit A-3 clearly shows that the vehicle did not suffer from any mechanical defect. Exhibit A-4 the copy of the post mortem certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon PW 4 shows that very serious injuries were sustained by the deceased. We are not concerned with the case in which Exhibit A-2 Charge-Sheet had been filed against the driver of the vehicle. Ex. A. 1 certified copy of the first information report also discloses that the contents of the same were written as disclosed by the eye-witnesses in this case.