KARAN LAL Vs. CHARAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/ registered owner of the offending tractor and trolley has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act being aggrieved by the award dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in Motor Claim Case No.86/2009 whereby allowing the claim of respondent No.1 to 3 with respect of the vehicular death of Bhuvan Lal, aged about twenty years the son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brother of respondent No.3 by exonerating the Insurance Company respondent No.5 has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- along with the interest @ 6 % p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Bhuvan Lal son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brother of respondent No.3 was working as labour with respondent No.4 Shivshankar @ Kolhu Banote and under his instruction on 19.5.2009 in the morning he went on the tractor of the appellant bearing registration No. M.P.50-A-1758 to bring the sand and stones for the purpose of construction of the house and Court Yard of respondent No.4. Such tractor was driven by the deceased Driver Raman @ Ram Prasad. After loading the sand and stones in the trolley he was returning to the house by sitting on the trolley on the way some road being under construction was zig zag, resultantly the tractor trolley turned turtled. Consequently, aforesaid driver Raman and said Bhuvan Lal died on the spot. Incident was reported to the Police Station Navegaon, the dead bodies were sent to the hospital for postmortem, the same was carried out. Some merg intimation was also registered. As per further averments the deceased Bhuvanlal beside the work of labour with respondent No.4 was also doing some agricultural work and out of them was earning Rs.5,000/- p. m. It is further stated that due to his untimely death the respondent No.1 to 3 have been deprived from dependency and they have no other source of income. In such premises, the impugned claim was preferred for the sum of Rs.16,54,000/- against the appellant as well as the Insurance Company with a prayer to pass the award jointly and severely against them.

(3.) In joint reply of appellant and respondent No.4 under whose subordination the deceased was working as labour by admitting the registered ownership of tractor and trolley in the name of appellant, it is stated that tractor was duly insured with respondent No.5. However, the factum of accident was denied. In alternative it is stated that on holding any liability of the accident against them then same be saddled against the respondent No.5, as the tractor was duly insured with it. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made.