STATE OF M P Vs. RASIKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the award dated 27.2.98 passed in claim Case No.13/93 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, the State has filed this appeal. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

(2.) THE contractor/respondent No.5 filed his written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. He pleaded the roller was kept on the side of the road and red lights were on even coaltar drums were kept by the side of the roller in abundant caution. THEre was no negligence on the part of the driver or the roller. He further pleaded that the road-roller belongs to Public Works Department. THE contractors use to take the roller for completion of their contract on rent on certain agreement. THErefore, the liability, if any would be on the Government being the owner of the road-roller. Respondent No.6/driver also filed his written statement and denied the contentions of the claimants.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also persused the records of the Claims Tribunal. Admittedly, the Claim Petition was filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was sine qua none for maintaining the Claim Petition as well as for getting any claim under the said provisions as it was a negligence based claim. This is what the Supreme Court held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors, AIR 2007 SCW 3591.