STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GULABI SUDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, has preferred this appeal against the order and judgment awarding Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment in favour of the present respondents who have filed the application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation on account of death of Sudhu Gupta, the husband of the present respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: Sudhu Gupta admittedly met with an accident on 13th Road, Aarey Colony, Goregaon, on 1.9.1974 at about 10.30 a.m. as a result of dash given to him by a tractor bearing No. MRX 3644 belonging to the present appellant and driven by its employee. Sudhu Gupta was walking by the left side of the road. The tractor belonging to the present appellant came from behind and dashed against the deceased resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The respondents -claimants alleged that the said tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the tractor had not blown the horn and was actually looking behind and, therefore, the accident took place. The deceased was working as a labourer and it is claimed that he was earning about Rs. 15/ - per day. It is also claimed that he was maintaining his two children, wife and parents. It is also claimed that the deceased was of the age of 35 years at the time of his death. The respondents, therefore, claimed that as deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor who was an employee of the present appellant, the appellant is liable to pay claim of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) ON the strength of the evidence led before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the tractor who was the employee of the present appellant was responsible for causing fatal injuries to the deceased and that the said injuries were caused as a result of rash and negligent driving by him. The Tribunal also concluded that though the place where the accident took place was the property of the appellant where Aarey Milk Colony is established and may not be considered as a public road but as the public were allowed to use and pass through the said property, the fact that the said property was a private property of the appellant did not make any difference and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that as the deceased was a trespasser, he was not entitled to any compensation does not make any difference. The Tribunal also found on the strength of the evidence of the wife of the deceased that the deceased was of the age of 35 years at the time of his death and was at least earning Rs. 300 per month as wages by working as a labourer and even if it is assumed that he was spending about Rs. 100/ - per month for himself, he was spending about Rs. 200 per month on his family out of his wages. On the basis of this, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased normally would have lived for another 35 years and, therefore, if from his earning he was spending Rs. 2,400/ - per annum for his family then in 35 years he would have earned at least Rs. 75,000/ - which he would have spent for his family. The Tribunal also took into consideration that as a lump sum amount was to be paid by way of compensation, the said amount of Rs. 75,000/ - would be required to be reduced and accordingly awarded only Rs. 50,000/ - to the claimants.