PALE SARDAR Vs. CHAMPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G .D. Saxena, J. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the owner/appellant against an Award dated 23rd February 2004 in Claim Case No. 6/2002 passed by the Third Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Guna (M.P.) granting compensation to the claimants of the deceased in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - alongwith costs as well as 9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till full and final payment is made.

(2.) THE facts, in short, for decision of the appeal are that on 23rd June 1996 at about 12 in the noon, at Khejara Road Kent Guna, Patrulal was travelling as a labour of the owner -appellant in a trolley bearing registration No.CPW/8436 attached with a tractor No. MPH 9854 driven by Shankarlal. It is alleged that the driver of the tractor had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, deceased Patrulal fell from the tractor on the ground and received serious injuries. After first aid in the District Hospital, he was shifted to J.A. Hospital Gwalior, where during treatment he succumbed to injuries on 11th July 1996. The information of the incident was sent on 11th July 1996 and Marg report was written on the same day but after inquiry into Marg, the FIR was lodged and Crime was registered on 18th August 1996 against the said tractor driver Shankarlal. After investigation, the charge -sheet was filed before the criminal court. The claimants by presenting petition under Section 166 of the Act prayed for grant of Rs. 8,50,000/ - as compensation against the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was causal agricultural labour and was earning Rs. 100/ - per day. After trial and on considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned tribunal passed the award of Rs. 1,20,000/ - alongwith interest and costs of the case against the driver and owner of the vehicle, as mentioned above, hence, this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the award under appeal is against the facts as came out from the evidence as adduced by the parties before the tribunal and recognized principles of law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the appellant in this case has successfully proved by the evidence that no such accident was met with his tractor which was driven by his driver. It is submitted by him that prior to reaching of his tractor and trolley, the injured was lying on the road who informed that he fell down from the jeep in which he was travelling and got injuries and thereafter on the request of the injured, he was shifted to hospital for treatment. Appellant thus urged that implication of his vehicle was wrong and illegally. It is also admitted that claimant/respondent No.1 Smt. Champabai, widow of deceased Patrulal remarried with another person and so after remarriage she is not entitled to any relief. Other claimants being majors and earning members are also not entitled to any relief. It is further pointed by the counsel that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 65 years and therefore multiplier, looking to the age ought to have been applied for determining the quantum of dependency of claimants. On the basis of aforesaid, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the award passed against the appellant may be set aside.