JUDGMENT
G.K. Mathur, J.
1. This first appeal from order, preferred by the claimants, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 1978 by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pauri, had dismissed their claim petition for Rs. 80,000/- as compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The claimants who happened to be the heirs of B.N. Naithani, alleged that B.N. Naithani was travelling by bus No. UPS 9352, belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, from Najibabad to Lansdowne on 13th July, 1975 and when the bus was about or 7km. from Lansdowne, it fell into a khadda due to rash and negligent act of the driver, Chandra Singh, opposite party No. 1 and as a result of the accident, B,N. Naithani received multiple injuries and died in the Military Hospital, Landsdowne. The deceased was employed as Employment Officer at Uttar Kashi and was getting a salary of Rs. 1,082.75 per month and was of 57 years of age. The claim was preferred against the driver and the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation.
3. Chandra Singh, the driver of the bus, in his written statement alleged that on 13th July, 1975, the bus in question left Najibabad for Lansdowne at 6.00 a.m. and after crossing Dariyakhal Suddenly its henge broke down, the steering wheel got jammed and the brakes failed. He pleaded that he had warned the passengers to save themselves, as the machinery had failed, but the vehicle fell down into khadda. He also contended that the accident was caused due to mechanical breakdown and not due to negligent act on his part.
4. On behalf of the Corporation, it was pleaded in its written statement that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident took place due to reasons beyond the control of the driver. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants was highly exaggerated.
5. The Tribunal framed two issues for decision and, after taking the evidence of the parties into consideration, it held that from the evidence on record it appeared that the accident did not take place due to negligent act of the driver. The Tribunal has also held that the accident appears to be an act of God and the cause of the accident was breakdown of the machinery and there was nothing to show that the defect in the machinery and there was nothing to show that the defect in the machinery was so latent that the bus should not have been put on the road. The Tribunal, therefore, did not discuss the evidence on the point of amount of compensation and dismissed the claim petition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it was for the opposite parties to establish that the accident was caused due to latent defect which was not discoverable by reasonable care and that the opposite parties neither specifically pleaded that the mechanical defect was latent nor substantiated it by any evidence. In support of this argument he has relied upon the case Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (SC). It has been laid down in the aforesaid case that, the burden of proving that the accident was due to a mechanical defect is on the owners and it is their duty to show that they had taken all reasonable care and that despite such care the defect remained hidden.
7. On behalf of the respondents, opposite party No. 1, Chandra Singh, the driver, alone was examined as DW1. He stated that the bus in question was of 1955 -56 model, that it was given to him on 10th of July, 1975 after its repairs being done for about one month in the workshop, that he plied the bus on 12th of July, 1975 from Najibabad to Landsdowne and came back on 13th July, 1975 and that he again left for Lansdowne from Najibabad the same day. He has nowhere stated about latent defect in the machinery of the bus and did not allege that the breaking of the left henge, dislodging of the engine from the foundation and the blocking of the steering wheel was due to latent defect. It has nowhere been specifically pleaded in the written statement by him that the mechanical defect was latent and was not discoverable by use of reasonable care.
8. It must have been in the special knowledge of the respondents as to what repairs the vehicle needed when it was brought in the workshop and whether all the defects of the vehicle were removed at the time of its delivery to the driver on 10th July, 1975. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent to establish that the bus in question was roadworthy and did not suffer from any latent defect.
9. PW 4 Manoj Kumar, who was travelling in the bus in question, specifically stated that when the bus had reached near Dariyakhal, the driver and the conductor were talking together that the vehicle was not in proper order and that they ought not have brought it. Thus from the evidence on record it is made out thay they plied such a vehicle which was not roadworthy and the accident in question occurred due to the negligence of the respondents.
10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, keeping in view the age of the deceased, his emoluments and the period of expectancy of life, we are of opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the claimants are awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,500/- in all.
11. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The appellants are awarded a sum of Rs. 10,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent annum from the date of filing the application for compensation.