Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by M.A.C.T. on issue Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 1 in the positive and issue No. 2 in the negative. The resultant position is that the appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

20. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. and remand the proceedings to the M.A.C.T. with a direction to decide the remaining issues on merit and pass appropriate award for compensation expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from date of receipt of the records. The M.A.C.T. is well advised to keep in mind that the accident took place as far back as on 16.11.1991 and the dependants of the deceased are not awarded even compensation under 'no fault liability'. Involvement of the bus in the accident is not denied though 'actionable negligence' on the part of its driver is denied by the Corporation. Alas Pathetic indeed. A case for introspection for the court!!! S.B. Majage, J.

23. So, what is pleaded and brought on record for the claimants is considered, it is to the effect that, the bus going at high speed stopped suddenly and the deceased motorcyclist, who was riding motor cycle behind the bus, could not control his motor cycle, though tried to apply brakes and thereby, accident took place. To believe it, certainly, there should have been skid marks on the road. However, skid marks do not find place in spot mahazar, Exh. P-5. So, absence of skid marks of the bus is a strong circumstance against the claimants' case that the bus, while going at high speed, stopped suddenly. So also absence of skid marks of the motor cycle near or behind the place of accident comes against the case of claimants that the deceased motorcyclist, though applied brakes, could not control it. That apart, if the bus was going at high speed and the motorcyclist was riding the motor cycle in its normal speed (not in high speed), then the distance between the two moving vehicles would have been more and as such, there would not have been any chance of accident even if the bus had stopped suddenly. Further, the fact that the bus was standing at a distance of 6 ft. ahead whereas, the motor cycle was found lying at a distance of about 8 ft. behind the place of accident (as mentioned in Exh. P-5 mahazar), also suggests that accident might not have taken place as is being contended for the claimants. At any rate, if assumed that the bus was at high speed, then, to dash against the hind portion of the bus, the motor cycle also must have come at the same (high) speed, otherwise there would not have been any accident. So, even if the case of claimants with the evidence adduced by them is accepted as it is (without scrutiny), then also, it unhesitatingly shows that the deceased was driving motor cycle either at great speed or, at any rate, without having control over it otherwise, there would not have been the accident because, it is the case of claimants that the motor cycle came from behind the bus and dashed against the hind portion of the bus when the bus going at high speed stopped suddenly as alleged.

24. In this case, there is nothing on record to show the distance between the bus and the motor cycle, when the bus stopped suddenly allegedly. It need not be said that when a man drives a motor vehicle on the road, he is required to keep some distance between his vehicle and another vehicle, when another vehicle is found going ahead to his vehicle. Having regard to the admitted case of claimants and materials on record, it appears to me that the deceased, who was driving motor cycle, had not kept the required minimum distance between his motor cycle and the bus. Had he kept or maintained such distance between his motor cycle and bus, probably, the accident would have been averted.

35. The deceased was on 16.11.1991 riding a motorbike on what is known as Chikodi-Ichalakaranji Road. A bus owned by the respondent Corporation bearing the registration No. CAF 3548 was it appears going ahead of the motorcyclist. Somewhere along the way the bus driver appears to have stopped the bus according to the claimants so suddenly that the deceased who was following on the motorbike was taken unaware. Unable to control the bike he crashed into the bus from behind, fell down and succumbed to injuries on the spot. A claim petition was in due course filed by the claimants for payment of compensation against the Corporation and its driver, inter alia, alleging that the accident in question had taken place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The claim was opposed by the Corporation primarily on the ground that the accident in question had taken place not because of rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus, but because of the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It was stated that since the claimants had themselves admitted that the accident in question had taken place on account of the failure of the deceased to control the speed of the motorcycle he was riding, there was no room for awarding any compensation against the Corporation. The allegation that the bus was stopped suddenly without any signal was also denied. It was stated that the vehicle in question had been stopped by the driver near Sadalaga Cross and that since the brake lighfs were in working condition on the date of the accident, the same was a sufficient signal to any vehicle coming from behind, that the bus going ahead was about to stop.