Vidhuran Yooda Thadevoos vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The claimant in O.P. (M.V.). No. 1652/2004 before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant herein. He filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a passenger in a K.S.R.T.C. bus. He was standing in the bus and was thrown out through the door on the rear side of the bus. He contended that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. holding that the accident occurred solely because of the negligence of the appellant himself. The appellant is challenging the award of the Tribunal dismissing the O.P. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant was travelling by public transport system provided by the K.S.R.T.C. He was standing inside the bus and he was thrown out through the door only because of the negligence in driving of the vehicle by its driver. The finding of the Tribunal is perverse is the contention raised.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. would contend that the Tribunal was right in finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the appellant himself. It is submitted that there was plenty of space in the bus and the appellant chose to travel standing on the bus near the rear door and consequently, he was negligent in the matter of travelling, which alone contributed to the accident, for which, the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus is not responsible.

We have considered the rival contentions in detail. We find the finding of the Tribunal very strange. The Tribunal accepted the fact that the appellant was standing inside the bus near the rear door from the very beginning of his entry into the bus from My lad, though several passengers alighted from the bus in different bus stops till it reached the place of occurrence. According to the Tribunal, when people alighted it was the duty of the appellant to go to a safer space to the front of the bus. For not having done so, the appellant should be held to be responsible for the accident is the finding. Such a finding is against common sense. Every bit of space in the K.S.R.T.C. bus must be a safe space for any passenger to travel whether it is at the front of the bus or near the rear door except, of course, the foot board. Of course, the 1st respondent had taken a contention that the appellant was travelling by the foot board. But that contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the fact that the appellant was standing near the rear door inside the bus. It cannot be said that the rear side of the bus, near the door is not a safe place for travel. Different passengers may prefer to travel at different spaces in the bus. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to take the passengers to their destinations safely. Apart from that, there is a conductor also, who is expected to see that the passengers are taken to their destinations safely. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely because of the negligence of the appellant is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant alone was responsible for the accident is hereby set aside. O.P. (M.V.). 1652/2004 is remanded to the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, for reconsideration in the light of the above findings.

The appeal is disposed of as above.