SHAKUN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a claim petition presented by Shakun, wife of Suresh Dheemar, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It appears that Suresh, husband of claimant Shakun and son of Puniya, was a temporary employee in the Irrigation Department and was earning a sum of Rs. 450/- p. m. On 31. 10. 1986 he was going on the site on truck No. MPZ 8125. It was being driven by Shiv Lahri rashly and negligently. Due to his rash and negligent driving it turned turtle near village Sallaiya and Suresh Dheemar was badly injured. He was sent to Gwalior hospital but declared dead. The police had arrived at the place of occurrence and registered a case against Shiv Lahri driver under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner claimed herself to be the wife of deceased Suresh Dheemar. Puniya is his mother. The claimant further claimed that had Suresh not died he would have lived since 70 years of age and would have mended his sons. She had suffered mentally due to death of her husband. The truck belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh. She, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss she suffered due to death of Suresh. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also claimed for mental agony. Puniya, who was arrayed as non-applicant No. 3, supported the claim of the claimant and alleged that she is the mother of the deceased. She also claimed compensation equally along with the claimant.

(2.) THE State of Madhya Pradesh in its written statement denied that the claimant was the wife of the deceased. It was alleged that Suresh was a daily-wage employee and was working as helper at the rate of Rs. 9. 65 per day plus Rs. 2. 90 as D. A. Thus he used to get Rs. 12. 55 per day in all. His wages were used to be deducted for his absence. It was incorrect that he was a temporary employee at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. The accident has not been disputed, vide para 4 of the written statement, but it has been alleged that it took place due to mechanical failure of the brakes. As brakes failed the truck turned turtle. The death of Suresh did not take place due to rash and negligent driving. The claimant was not entitled to any compensation. The claim is also exorbitant. The claimant had also performed dhreecha and as such she was not entitled to any claim. The Claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues that arose from the pleadings of the parties, took evidence, heard the parties and after considering the entire material awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation to the claimant as well as to non-applicant No. 3 jointly and severally. Besides it, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition was also awarded. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred M. A. No. 10 of 1993 and the claimant has preferred M. A. No. 262 of 1992. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, they have been heard together on merits and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the claimant, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as the counsel for non-applicant No. 3 at length and gone through the record.