UNION OF INDIA Vs. MITHILESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29.9.1993 of the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 90 of 1992 by which the learned Member of the Tribunal has directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/ - towards damages to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of the death of Sushil Kumar, husband of respondent No. 1 and son of respondent No. 2 in an accident on 23.9.1988.

(2.) THE respondents had filed an application claiming compensation for the death of Sushil Kumar alleging that while Sushil Kumar was going as a passenger in jeep bearing registration No. MBA 3742, the appellant No. 2 came driving from behind, his vehicle bearing registration No. 79 D -33626 H and on account of rash and negligent driving, collided with the jeep resulting in death of Sushil Kumar. The claim was resisted on the ground that the accident had not occurred on account of any rashness or negligence of the driver of the vehicle of the appellants but purely on account of fault and negligence attributable to the driver of the jeep. It was stated that Sushil Kumar was standing on the foot -rest of the jeep and the jeep driver had suddenly applied brake which resulted in collision of the two vehicles and as Sushil Kumar had been precariously clinging to the jeep he had flung out and received injuries.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the statement of the driver of the vehicle (appellant No. 2), it was clear that it was purely on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep that the accident had occurred and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants were liable for the compensation. Appellant No. 2 Havaldar Prem Nath examined himself on oath and stated before the Claims Tribunal that his vehicle was fully loaded and he was proceeding from Rewa to Allahabad behind a jeep in which 10 -12 persons were travelling and one person was standing on the foot -rest. According to his statement, weather was not good and it was drizzling. He further stated that the driver of the jeep suddenly applied brake on seeing a truck approaching from the opposite direction, His vehicle skidded with the result the left side corner of his vehicle collided with the jeep. He could, however, not tell how the boy who was standing on the foot -rest of the jeep sustained injury. He has admitted in his deposition that because his vehicle was loaded it took time to stop. This shows that had the vehicle not been loaded, the vehicle would have stoopped before and averted collision. The driver of the vehicle has clearly admitted that there was distance of 20 -25 yards between the jeep and his vehicle. The fact that despite there being distance of 20 -25 yards between the jeep and the vehicle, he could not stop his vehicle itself shows negligence on his part and that he did not take immediate steps to avert the accident. The finding of the Claims Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.