AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Verma, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the motor accident.
At about 9.30 a.m. on 5-5-1971, the deceased Shantibai was being taken on a bicycle by her husband Rameshchandra (Respondent No. 1) when tractor-M.P.O. 8166 with trolley M.P.O. 8522 attached to it came from behind round a bend and the trolley knocked down the cycle. Shantiabai was crushed by the wheels of the trolley and she died on the spot. Respondent No. 3 Laxmanrao was driving the tractor, which was owned by Appellant No. 1 and insured with Appellant No. 2. The first information report (Ex. P. 4) was lodged by Rameshchandra, husband of the deceased, the same night at the Sadar Bazar Station, Indore. The husband and one year old child of the deceased are the claimants. The defence is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and that Rameshchandra could not control the cycle at a result of which Shantibai fell from it and was crushed.
The Tribunal has held that negligence of the driver is proved and consequently a sum of Rs. 14,000/- has been awarded as compensation against the sum of Rs. 30,000/- claimed.
The first argument of Mr. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the Appellants is that there is no negligence of the driver proved from the evidence. He adds that in any case there was contributory negligence of the cyclist Rameshchandra on account of which the damages should be apportioned. We have no hesitation in rejecting this argument. There is no dispute that the cyclist was towards his extreme left on the road and that the tractor with the trolley which hit Shantibai after which she was crushed by its wheels. The cyclist was not coming from the opposite direction. It was the duty of the driver of the tractor to negotiate the bend in such a manner that sufficient margin was left for the trolley also to negotiate the bend without knocking down any one, who was on the left side of the road. The facts reveal that this was not done on account of which Shantibai was knocked down. The cyclist continuing to remain towards his left side of the road had done all that was expected of him in such a situation. The entire negligence was undoubtedly that of the tractor driver alone. There is thus no case made out for fastening any blame on the cyclist.
The other argument on behalf of the Appellants is that the amount of Rs. 14,000/- awarded as compensation is excessive. The deceased was aged about 19 years and she has left behind a child, who was about one year old at the time of the accident, in addition to her husband. In our opinion, the amount awarded is not at all excessive and in any case it is not such as to justify any reduction in any appeal. This argument is also rejected.
Consequently, this appeal fails and is here by dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/- if certified.