(1.) This is an appeal by the minor sister and mother of the deceased Limrha, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa, by his award dated 24.11.1987, passed in Claim Case No. 33 of 1984, has rejected the claim application. Hence, this appeal has been filed. The brief facts leading to the case are that on 3.5.1984, respondent No. 1 was driving tanker No. MBK 9630, belonging to Municipal Corporation, Khandwa and insured with respondent No. 3. According to the claimants, respondent No. 1 was driving the tanker with the permission of respondent No. 2. The tanker was being driven from Khandwa to Jaswadi for supplying water and at that time the deceased Limrha was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. It is further alleged by the claimants that respondent No. 1 was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and on a slope applied the brakes suddenly, resulting in the fall of Limrha from the mudguard and the rear tyre had crushed the body of the deceased, which caused severe internal injuries. The deceased was immediately taken to the Hospital where he died the same evening. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 15/- per day and because of his death, they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 47,000/-. It was also contended that they are entitled to Rs. 15,000 under the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act as no fault liability.
(2.) The defence of respondent No. 1 was that he was driving the vehicle with proper care and caution. He was neither rash nor negligent and in any case, the deceased all of a sudden fell from the mudguard. On this, the vehicle was stopped. The deceased was asked and at that time, the deceased informed the driver that because his hand slipped, he fell down from the vehicle. All other allegations were also denied and it was further contended that the deceased was not earning Rs. 15/- per day but in fact he was earning only a sum of Rs. 8.25 per day, being a casual labourer.
(3.) The learned Trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimants could not prove rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, they also could not prove that the deceased fell down from the vehicle because of sudden application of the brakes and decided that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation, but for the compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.