RAMHIN BAI Vs. SUBHASH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 6 of 2004 dismissing the claim of the appellants. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that the deceased Baldau Prasad Yadav was a tractor driver and was working with non-applicant No. 1 on monthly wages of Rs. 2,000. In the intervening night of 2/3.7.2003 when he was ploughing the field of non-applicant No. 1 at his instructions near Ratanpur Khuntaghat by tractor, the tractor turned turtle and he died. Earlier, the tractor had mechanical defect and several times, it was brought to the notice of the owner, i.e., non-applicant No. 1, but he did not get it repaired. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased have made a claim to the tune of Rs. 14,60,000 on various heads for the death of the deceased.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he docs not want to argue on merits as the deceased who met with an accident was himself driving the tractor and as such due to lack of legal advice instead of mentioning the claim application under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was wrongly mentioned as under section 166 and the Tribunal has decided the claim application treating the same as under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An application has also been moved in this regard to treat the claim application under section 163A. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., 2001 ACJ 1528

(3.) With regard to the income, Tribunal has also found the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,400 per month or Rs. 28,800 per annum, which is less than the outer limit of Rs. 40,000 as per the Schedule prescribed under section 163A of the Act.