BIHARI Vs. SINGHAL & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and assailing the Award dtd. 22/4/2006 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 24/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short '' MV Act'') for compensation of Rs.6,80,000.00 on account of the death of Prakash (son of appellant Nos.1 and 2) was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 25/9/2004, at about 6:00 p.m., near Dholkhedi, under Reliance Construction Petrol Pump, Vidisha-Basoda Road, a crane bearing registration number MPN-5605, owned and operated by 'Pawan Crane,' was being used at the site. Respondent No.2, while operating the said crane in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly lifted a heavy object, due to which the side wall of a pit collapsed. The pit was filled with gravel, ballast, and sand, and several labourers working inside the pit got buried. Prakash, the son of appellant Nos.1 and 2, died on the spot. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Vidisha, and a case under Sec. 304 of the IPC was registered vide Crime No. 634/2004. Postmortem was conducted, witnesses were examined, and charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. The appellants-claimants thereafter filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,80,000.00 from the respondents. The respondents denied the claim by filing written statements. The Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence of both sides. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident did not occur due to the use of the crane in a public place and that the death of Prakash occurred as a result of the caving-in of the pit, rather than an 'accident involving a motor vehicle.'

(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellants-claimants have approached this Court contending inter alia that the impugned Award is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a social welfare legislation. The learned Tribunal erred in holding that the crane does not fall within the definition of a 'motor vehicle' merely because it was used for lifting goods. The interpretation of 'public place' under Sec. 2(34) of the MV Act by the Tribunal is erroneous and unduly narrow. The deceased was aged 22 years and was the sole earning member of his family, working as a labourer under a contractor. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly dismissed the claim petition. In support of contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ms. Mallama and Others, Misc. First Appeal No.6615/2014 (MV-I), decided on 17/12/2024 (NC 2024 KHC 52058).