20,000/ out of which Rs.
60,000/ only against all the respondents holding that the drivers of both the buses were negligent.
Similarly Miscellane ous First.
223 of 1965 that Oriental Company was to pay a total companypensation of Rs.
220 of 1965 against Shastri which was allowed by the High Court to this extent that the decree against Gupta and Ram Swaroop was made joint and several along with the appel lant Bhuta.
219 and 220 of 1965 and Civil Appeal No.
132 of 1969 From the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th August, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh.
Manjushri Raha, the main appellant in Civil Appeal No.
When the bus travelled a distance of about 26 miles on the Bhind Gwalior road another bus bearing No.
40,000/ against Bhuta, Sushil Kumar driver and Oriental Company.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th August, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
15,000/ by Gupta and Rs.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
Appeal No.
Against the decision the Claims Tribunal, Gupta field Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
The appellant further undertook to pay Rs.
MPG 4615 belonging to Bhuta was seen companying from the opposite direc tion.
1826 of 1968 and 132 of 1969 in this Court arise out of the aforesaid appeal before the High Court.
It was further companytended that even if the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to Raha is enhanced that should be payable by Bhuta alone and number by the appellant Gupta, who has settled the claim with the appellant Raha.
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
The facts giving rise to the claims of Raha and Shastri were that on April 10, 1962 Satyendra Nath Raha the husband of Raha and Uma Shanker Shastri the husband of Shastri were travelling in vehicle No.
When the two buses were approaching in opposite directions, both the drivers being negligent and having failed to take the necessary precautions of keeping to their left led to a head on companylision of the two buses as a companyse quence of which the two persons, namely, Satyendra Nath Raha and Uma Shanker Shastri sustained fatal injuries to which they succumbed on the same day in the Gohad Hospital.
1,20,000/ as companypensation from the aforesaid respondents.
The appeal, therefore, lies within a very narrow companypass.
N. Shroff H.S. Parihar for Respondent No.
But Bhuta had flied an appeal in the High Court being Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
The driver of the M.P. Speedways Company was Ram Swaroop while that of the bus belonging to Bhuta was Sushil Kumar.
The present appeals in this Court have been filed by Gupta and Raha.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The claim of Shastri was decreed only to the extent of Rs.
222 of 1965 was flied before the High Court by Oriental Company against Shastri but that was also dismissed.
The facts and circumstances under which the accident took place have number been disputed by companynsel for the parties, number have the essential findings of fact given by the Claims Tribunal and the High Court been challenged before us.
The Claims Tribunal decreed the claim of Raha to the extent of Rs.
12,000/ to Raha.
First Appeals Nos.
First Appeal No.
MPG 4307.
MPG 4397 owned by Gupta of the M.P. Speedways Company from Bhind to TM Gwali or.
L. Sanghi, Talat A nsari, R.K. Sanghi and K.J. John.
14,000 by insurance Companies in full and final settlement of the claim of Raha and, there fore, the appeal should be decreed in terms of the companypro mise.
MPG 4615 will be referred to as Bhuta, whereas B.L. Gupta the owner of vehicle No.
8,000/ was to be paid to Shastri and Rs.
In CAs.
K. Puri and A.G. Ratnaparkhi.
High Court in Misc.
231.0 1826 of 1968.
for Respondents 1 3.
No decree was passed against Ram Swaroop driver of the M.P. Speedways Company and New India Company because there was numberallegation of negligence against these persons in the claim flied by Shastri.
for Respondent No.
223 of 1965 was flied before the High Court by Oriental Company against Raha which was also dis missed along with the cross objection which was filed by Raha for enhancement of the companypensation.
But before dealing with the appeals, it may be necessary to indicate the reliefs granted by the Claims Tribunal to the parties companycerned.
S. Parihar 1.
K. Puri for respondent No.
203 of 1965 .
219 of 1965 was filed by Bhuta against Raha, Gupta and others which was also dismissed by the High Court, but Bhuta has number filed any appeal to this Court against the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court in that appeal.
The appeals arise in the following circum stances.
N. Shroff for respondent No.
MPG 4307 belonging to the M.P. Speedways Company would be referred to as Gupta.
2310 of 1968 will, in short, be referred to hereafter aS Raha, whereas respond ents Oriental Fire General Insurance Company would be referred to as Oriental Company and the New India Insur ance Company as New India Company.
2310 of 1968 for the appellants.
Manjula Devi Bhuta representing the owner of vehicle No.
S. Sanghi, Talat Ansari, R.K. Sanghi and K.J.John for respondent No.
6 for Respondents 9 to 11.
MPG 4615, Oriental Company, New India Company, Gupta owner of the M.P. Speedways Company and Ram Swaroop driver of vehicle No.
6 of 1962 was filed by Raha along with her two minor children against Bhuta, Sushil Kumar driver of vehicle No.
Padmavati Shastri, the respondent in one of the appeals, would be referred to as Shastri.
3,00,000/ against the respondents Under s. 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5 of 1962 against the respondents mentioned above claiming Rs.
With this little preface we number take up the facts in the appeals by certificate filed by B.L. Gupta and Smt.
132/69 1826/68 for the Appellant in 132 in 1826/ 68.
S. Chatterjee D.P. Mukherjee, in CA No.
The applicant Raha claimed companypensation for a sum of Rs.
Similarly Shastri filed Claim Case No.
Both these claims were companysolidated and heard and decided by one companymon judgment by the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.
S. Chatterjee D.P. Mukherjee.
Manjus hri Raha in this Court, and which after being companysolidated have been disposed of by one companymon judgment both by the Claims Tribunal as also by the High Court.
203 of 1965 against Bhuta, Raha and others which was dismissed by the High Court.
