Smt.Maimunissa Begum And 4 Others vs The A.P.S.R.T.C And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 2515 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2515 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Smt.Maimunissa Begum And 4 Others vs The A.P.S.R.T.C And Another on 4 July, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             M.A.C.M.A No.2911 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

aggrieved by the Order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the

learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.P No.2181 of

2011, seeking enhancement of the compensation granted

by the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side

and perused the material available on record.

3. The claimants are claiming enhancement of the

compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased

was travelling in the bus. The case of the claimants is

that the bus was fully loaded and there were no doors

to the bus. The deceased was standing rear side of the

bus and the other passengers were trying to get down

and rushed towards rear side door, in that process, the

deceased was pushed out of the bus and he fell on the

road and received injuries on the body.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance

on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v.

M.Jagannatha 1 wherein it was held thus:

"5. The High Court while considering this question believed the following statement of the claimant PW.1:

"The conductor told the passengers who are to go to Parrys Cornor to get down here itself. Seven passengers got down before me. My friends who came with me also got down. We got down from the front gate of the bus. When I was getting down suddenly the driver took the bus. I slipped and fell down."

According to the statement the conductor told the passengers who are to go to Parrys Corner to get down here itself, claimant further states, in fact seven passengers got down before him and when he was getting down, suddenly the driver started the bus he slipped down. If this be so, which the High Court has believed, the question is if passengers were led by what the conductor told the passengers, then restarting the bus without taking any care that all such passengers got down constitute negligence both on the part of the conductor and the driver. It is always important to have coordination between the conductor and the

1 2001 ACJ 5

driver, whenever passengers start getting down or are led to get down, to see that before any signal is given by the conductor, in any form, as normally there is bell in most of the buses which conductor rings signalling the driver to start the bus, the driver should not restart the bus. In the absence of coherence or lack of coordination between the two it is bound to result into accident, which has happened in the present case. This would constitute to be negligence on the part of both the conductor and the driver. Once this evidence is accepted, which has been in this case, there is no scope to reassess the evidence in the present proceedings, about which attempt has been made, unless it can be said, this finding is based on no evidence or is perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with vehemence and attempted to takes us to the evidence to show that there was no negligence n the part of the driver. However, as we have said, it is not proper for this court to reassess the evidence and even if another view is possible, this court would not do so in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, we further find, as per evidence of PW.1, that he was getting down from the front gate of bus, which is almost adjacent to the driver. If that be so, there is no difficulty for the driver to take this much of care, even if the version of RW.1 is accepted, to restart the bus suddenly when the passengers were getting down. For all these reasons, we do not find any error committed by the

High Court in recording the finding that there was negligence on the part of the conductor/driver."

In the facts of the case when the claimant in the

said case was getting down from the bus from the front

side of the bus, it is alleged that the driver of the bus

suddenly drove the bus resulting in the claimant falling

down. In the said circumstances, the case referred by

the learned counsel for the claimants differs on facts

and has no application to the present case.

5. As seen from the record, the Tribunal found that

there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased. When the deceased fell down on the road

on account of the other passengers rushing out of the