SHEELA Vs. NANKUSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in dispute that one Malkhan died as a result of motor accident on 28. 8. 1983. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle belonged to defendant No. 2, M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. The application for grant of compensation was made by the legal heirs of the deceased to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 19. 12. 1983. Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 were the minor children of the deceased. Claimant No. 4 was the widow of the deceased. Claimant No. 5 was the father of the deceased. The total amount of compensation claimed by them against the two defendants, i. e. , the driver of the vehicle and its owner was Rs. 95,500/ -. After the trial of the claim case, the Tribunal, vide its award dated 19. 7. 1985 accepted the claim of claimant Nos. 1 to 4 to the extent of Rs. 19,400/-, taking into account the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which had already been paid by the defendant No. 2, Corporation, as ex gratia payment to the said claimants. It was directed by the Tribunal in its award that on the above-said amount of Rs. 19,400/- the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition.

(2.) IT is being aggrieved by the above-said award dated 19. 7. 1985 made by the Tribunal that the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal in this court. According to them, the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,400/-determined by the Tribunal was too low and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded to them at least an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. It may be mentioned that the owner of the vehicle, i. e. , the defendant No. 2, M. P. S. R. T. C. , has preferred a cross-objection in this appeal. It is pointed out by them that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the same. It is submitted by the defendant No. 2, Corporation, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants were not entitled to receive any compensation and that the award made by the Tribunal in their favour was liable to be set aside.

(3.) NOW, after perusing the evidence produced in the case, this court is satisfied that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the defendent No. 2, Corporation, that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was established beyond doubt from the evidence of PW 4, watchman, that after he had opened the gate of the railway crossing the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, came all of a sudden with great speed towards the crossing and hit the deceased who was on a bicycle. To say the least, in the facts and circumstances, the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, was writ large on the face of the events. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that (Sic. the death of) the deceased Malkhan had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, is proper and does not call for interference in this appeal.