Case: Smt. Indrani Raja Durai &amp; Ors Vs. Madras Motor &amp; General Insurancecompany &amp; Ors

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated July 5, 1974, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Appeal against Orders Nos. 34 and 178 of 1973. The facts are fairly clear. 2. On April 4, 1971, while the deceased, Rajadurai, was driving the motor cycle from western direction to eastern direction on the National Highway Madras to Bangalore at Kalathur junction, a motor vehicle had come in between. As a consequence, he had taken the extreme right to save his life. Consequently, the bus hit the motor cycle. As a result of which he died on the spot. The appellants are the widow and the children of the deceased who was aged about 31 years. The finding of the Tribunal is that the deceased was earning Rs. 800 per. month. On that basis the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal held that there was contributory nepligence. On that basis, after giving the benefit of contributory negligence it fixed the amount at Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court reversed the finding on the ground that the driver of the bus was not negligent. The entire negligence was on the part of the deceased. As a consequence, the appellants are not entitled to compensation. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 3. We have scanned the evidence and the reasoning of the High Court and the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered the evidence from the proper perspective. Since the driver of the bus equally was driving at a high speed, greater care was required of him to see that no accident took place. It would appear from the circumstances that the deceased, with a view to save himself from being sandwiched between the car and the bus, had taken to the extreme right. As a consequence, he hit the left bumper of the bus. It would thus be clear that the driver of the bus equally contributed to the accident. On the facts and circumstances, we think that negligence can be apportioned as 60 per cent. and 40 per cent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. We have scanned the evidence and the reasoning of the High Court and the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered the evidence from the proper perspective. Since the driver of the bus equally was driving at a high speed, greater care was required of him to see that no accident took place. It would appear from the circumstances that the deceased, with a view to save himself from being sandwiched between the car and the bus, had taken to the extreme right. As a consequence, he hit the left bumper of the bus. It would thus be clear that the driver of the bus equally contributed to the accident. On the facts and circumstances, we think that negligence can be apportioned as 60 per cent. and 40 per cent.