Judgment:
A.G. Qureshi, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an award dated 8-12-1981 passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim case No. 9 of 1979.
2. The appellant filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming an amount of Rs. 39,500.56 p. against the respondents on account of repair charges, loss of income and depreciation etc. The claim was based on the averment that on 8-7-1978 bus bearing registration number CPH-8135 belonging to the appellant was plying on Ujjain-Burhanpur road. Near village Bhorasala, on the aforesaid route bus bearing registration No. RRG-4023 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 overtook the bus of the appellant. When the bus approached near Bhorasala the respondent No. 2 without giving any signal or indication suddenly stopped the bus RRG-4023 in the middle of the road. Therefore, the bus of the appellant collided with the rear portion of the bus belonging to respondent No. 1 despite all attempts on the part of the driver of the designer of the bus of the appellant to avert the accident. As a result of the impact the front portion of the bus was badly damaged and the appellant had to send the passengers to their respective destinations in other buses. Therefore, Rs. 7600/56 p. was claimed for repair of the bus, Rs. 900/- cost for sending the passengers to their destinations and Rs. 25.000/- towards loss of income because of the non-plying of the bus during the period of repair and Rs. 6000/- by way of depreciation. As such a total claim of Rs. 39,500.56 was made.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the distance between the two buses was about 200 yards and when the bus of the respondent reached near village Bhorasala one hand cart was lying on the main road and a cycle rider was trying to overtake the hand cart. As such there was no space for the bus of the respondent to go ahead and the driver of the bus had no option but to stop the bus. The bus was being driven at a moderate speed. On the other hand the driver of the bus of the appellant was driving the bus rashly and negligently and while so driving dashed the bus against the rear portion of the bus of the respondent. As such the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the appellant.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings seven issues were framed to decide the claim petition and it was held that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 2. It was also found proved that the accident was caused as stated by the respondents and, therefore, it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant which caused the accident. As regards the repairs it was held that an amount of Rs. 3202.23 p. was spent on repairs. The other claims under different heads were not found proved. In view of the aforesaid findings the petition of the appellant was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Dhupad challenges the finding of the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the lower Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly,
6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents Shri Dave supports the award of the lower Tribunals.
7. After considering the respective arguments of the learned Counsel and perusing the record of the case I find that the order under challenge is proper and does not require any interfere. From the testimony of the witnesses of the applicant itself it is clear that the appellant has not been able to prove its case. A.W. 1 Kamlesh Girl states that there was distance of about 25 to 30 paces between the two buses. The bus which was going ahead suddenly stopped by application of brake and at that time the driver did not blow any horn. In para 14 of his statement this witness says that the Jaipur-Indore bus (belonging to respondent No. 1) had stopped at about 10 to 12 steps after the application of brake. However, he states that both the buses were being driven side by side. This statement that the buses were running side by side is contrary to his statement in examination-in-chief wherein he has stated that the Indore-Jaipur bus was ahead of the Ujjain-Burhanpur bus by about 20 to 25 paces. If the difference between the two buses was of 20 to 25 paces and the bus of the respondent after the application of brake stopped after 10 or 12 paces, then the bus of the appellant could have also stopped at a distance of 10 or 12 paces and the distance being 20 to 25 paces between the two buses it could not have collided. The bus of the appellant could have stopped even at the spot on application of brakes in view of the statement of this witness that it was being driven at a very slow speed. As such the statement of A.W.I does not help the case of the appellant, but helps that of the respondents.
8. A.W.2 Nabar Singh, who was the driver of the bus of the appellant states that when he was driving his bus at a moderate speed the bus of Rajasthan Roadways came from behind and it one took the bus of the appellant while driving the bus at a speed of 30 to 40 kms per hour. He further states that after side was given by this witness to Rajasthan Roadways bus for a distance of about 50 ft. the buses were driven side by side. Then he further states that his bus was about 15 to 20 ft behind the Rajasthan Roadways bus and due to sudden application of brake of the front bus without any indication with the result that his bus collided with the front bus despite his attempts to save the collision.
9. On the other hand Ganpatlal (M.A.W. 1) who was the conductor in the Rajasthan bus deposed that at the time of the impact the speed of his bus was about 30 to 40 kms. On the road there was a hand cart lying and when the bus was about 10 or 15 ft away from he theta the driver Bansilal blew the horn and after slowing the bus applied the brake. The bus, therefore, stopped at about a distance of 10 paces from the theta. One cycle rider was also overtaking the theta. Therefore, the road in front was blocked. He also states about the light indicator in the rear portion of the bus was in order which illuminates on the application of brakes. Dalchand (N.A.W.2) makes a similar statement as that of Ganpatlal. Banshilal (N.A.W.4), the driver of the Rajasthan Roadways bus has also supported the testimony of N.A.W. 1 and N.A.W.2. The statements of all these witnesses of the non-applicants are further supported by the document Ex.NA-1. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned lower Tribunal has not erred in any way in appreciating the evidence on record. The evidence has been discussed threadbare by the learned lower Tribunal and it has also considered the various judgments of the different High Courts while passing the impugned award. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no force in this appeal.
10. In the result the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.