SECL BISHRAMPUR Vs. BHARTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, who also happens to be the employer of the deceased. On account of death of the deceased Satish Kumar, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was preferred by his legal heirs (widow, two minor sons and parents) and the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,68,212/- in their favour.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim petition and the memo of appeal, are that the deceased Satish Kumar, son of Neelmani was employed with the Appellants/SECL as a dumper driver and was working in the Pokhariya Mines, Bishrampur. On 7-12-2002, at about 2:30 P.M., the dumper (haulpak) sunk in Mine No. 9, Pokhariya, as a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to death. The claimants, being the widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased, preferred the subject claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 66,32,264/- under different heads on the submission inter alia that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs. 11,480.88 Paisa and on account of his death, the claimants have lost the only earning member of the family and, thus, they have suffered loss of dependency income.

(3.) The Appellants/SECL, in their reply, stated that the dumper (haulpak) is not a motor vehicle, therefore, it is not registered with the registering authority under the Act and was not plied on public road, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable and the Appellants are not liable to pay compensation. It was also stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he got imbalanced and due to fear could not control the vehicle and jumped from the dumper (haulpak). It was further stated by the Appellants that Respondent No. l Smt. Bharti Devi has been granted compassionate appointment and she is getting all the benefits due to the death of her husband. It was also stated by the Appellants that the subject vehicle was plying in mines area, which is a private and prohibited area and, thus, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.