KUSUM Vs. KAMAL KUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 25. 9. 1996 passed by the additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Multai in Claim Case No. 4 of 1992 dismissing their claim regarding compensation for the death of their predecessor nago Rao in a vehicular accident.

(2.) AS per the averments of the claim petition, the predecessor of the appellants nago Rao had an agricultural field at village Sandiya, Tehsil Multai. Respondent no. 1, being dealer of respondent No. 2, manufacturer of tractor and power tillers, was marketing and selling the aforesaid tractor and the power tiller. On 7. 9. 1991 at about 9 or 10 a. m. , on behalf of respondent no. 2, respondent No. 1 organised a demonstration of their product, a Mitsubishi power tiller, of 12 hp having chassis No. CT 8530/82 and engine No. TWH 9497 at the field of Nago Rao. Villagers were also invited to such field in whose presence, firstly, respondent No. 1 drove such tiller and thereafter he asked Nago Rao to drive the same but he refused to drive. Again, on insistence and motivation given to him by respondent No. 1, without any instructions for driving the same, the deceased Nago rao drove the said tiller. During such driving, due to negligence of respondent No. 1 in giving proper instructions to him, he could not properly drive the same and met an accident in which his leg came into contact with some part of it and due to such injury and haemorrhage, he succumbed to such injuries during treatment. Deceased was the earning member of the family of the appellants. On his untimely death, they have been deprived from the dependency. Such accident took place because of negligence of the respondent. The deceased was 32 years of age and was earning Rs. 1,500 per month from the business of repairing of motor pump, radio, fan, watch, etc. With these pleadings, the claim was preferred for the compensation of Rs. 4,40,000 and interest.

(3.) IN reply of respondents, the manufacturing of tiller and tractor by respondent no. 2 and its marketing through respondent No. 1 as dealer has been admitted in it but they denied the other averments of the claim petition. They also denied any negligence on their part. In addition, it was pleaded that deceased Nago Rao himself was responsible for such accident as no negligence was committed by respondent no. 1. It is also stated that such power tiller is not covered under the definition of motor vehicles as defined under the Act. In special pleadings, it was pleaded that such power tiller was purchased by Naththu s/o uchit Thakur, resident of said village and on the date of the incident when respondent no. 1 reached his village then various villagers 150-200 in number, were assembled in front of the house of said Naththu. Nago rao was also there. After obtaining the consent of Nago Rao, Naththu Thakur requested respondent No. 1 to show demonstration of such power tiller at the field of nago Rao. Then respondent No. 1, in presence of the villagers with the help of his servants, demonstrated the work of such tiller at that field. Subsequent to it, after switching it off, it was stationed. Thereafter, when he was giving some instructions to the villagers regarding such tiller, meanwhile Nago Rao went to the tiller, however started it without any knowledge and consent of respondent No. 1 and when his leg was involved in such tiller, he cried. Then respondents and other persons ran and tried to rescue him. Accordingly, respondent No. 1, did not commit any negligence. Thus, no liability can be saddled against any of the respondents. He also pleaded that in connection of it, a case under section 304-A of the Indian Penal code was registered, investigated by the police and he was charge-sheeted in the court of JMFC, Multai but by the judgment dated 25. 9. 1995, he has been acquitted by such court.