KUSUMLATA TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award dated 23. 2. 1981 passed by Mr. M. S. Quraishi, Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 113 of 1980 dismissing the whole of the claim petition of the appellant-claimants.

(2.) THE appellant-claimants had filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,43,968/ -. Their case was that the deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, on 13. 10. 1979 proceeded on tour to Rewa and therefrom to Maihar in connection with the selection and inspection of the land for establishing Sanskrit Research Foundation. On 15. 10. 1979, he came to Maihar by vehicle No. MPZ 9230 and went to Sharda Mai Temple for selection and inspection of the land. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3, who was in service of respondent No. 1. On account of rash and negligent driving the driver lost his balance, as a result of which the said vehicle turned down and the deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi died on the spot. At that time he was 54 years old and could have survived atleast up to 75 years of his age and could have served the Government till 58 years of his age. He was due for promotion to the post of Divisional Superintendent of Education. At the time of accident he was working as Acting Deputy Director in the Department of Education, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, at Bhopal and was drawing Rs. 1,566/- per month plus Rs. 100/- as Deputation Allowance. He was also getting a sum of Rs. 1. 200/- per year as examiner remuneration.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admitted that the deceased was working as Acting Deputy Director. It was submitted that on the date of his death he was drawing Rs. 1,200/- per month. It was also admitted that the deceased at the time of accident was on duty, but it was denied that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the respondent No. 3.