STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SURESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the award, directing payment of compensation of Rs. 1,45,000.00 to the injured respondent, undoubtedly on 8-5-1989 respondent was crushed by the road roller belonging to the appellant, as a result of which he lost his right leg which had to be amputated. Alleging negligence of driver of the roller, respondent made a claim of Rs. 5,30,000.00 as compensation. Tribunal after consideration of materials on record has awarded Rs. 1,45,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till date of realization. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed.

(2.) At the time of admission of this appeal respondent entered caveat. Both the parties are in possession of copies of relevant documents and accordingly, with their consent the appeal is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) Mr. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel made a submission that road roller not being a motor vehicle, claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not admissible and the application ought to have been rejected on that ground. In view of definition of the motor vehicle in the Act we have no doubt that road roller comes within the definition and accordingly this contention of appellant has no force. Mr. Bisaria, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of negligence of the respondent the unfortunate accident happened and therefore, the appellant ought not to be liable for the injuries sustained by the respondent. From the records we are satisfied that the road roller is not being driven by the driver engaged for it. The nature of injuries are such that negligence cannot be attributed to the respondent. The nature of accident speaks for itself. Attracting the principles res ipsa loquitur we held that the driver of the road roller is squarely responsible for the unfortunate accident and appellant being employer and the owner of the vehicle has the liability to pay the compensation. Mr. Bisaria submitted that respondent is aged about 18 years and was employed not by the appellant but by a contractor, therefore, if any compensation is to be paid, the same is liable to be paid by the contractor and not by the appellant. As regards age, since there is no scope of employing a minor and there are some materials to show that the age is 18 years we come to the conclusion that injured respondent was aged 18 years. Even if the injured would not have been employed by the contractor appellant would have been liable to pay the amount since the accident was caused by its vehicle. The question would have been material if the claim would have been made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, appellant cannot escape liability in this case.