SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. RAJKUMARI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by a driver of the vehicle i.e., a tractor bearing CPW/5631 challenging the award dated 28th August, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Dabra, District Gwalior, in Case No. 22/2002.

(2.) Claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in this appeal are the wife and children of deceased Rajaram who died in accident that took place on 29th September, 1996 at 6 p.m., at Tahsil gate bus stand, Dabra. It is stated that when Rajaram along with Hakim Singh and Sarman Singh were going on their side of the road towards Tahsil gate, a tractor bearing CPW/5631 driven by the appellant came from behind, it was driven rash and negligent manner and dashed against Rajaram, as a result Rajaram died on the spot. An F.I.R. was lodged and on the basis of evidence and material that have come on record award of Rs. 2,45,000 has been passed. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant argued that tractor in question belongs to Nand Kishore respondent No. 13 and as appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter it was argued by him that the appellant was not driving the tractor, he has been acquitted from the criminal case as such finding recorded holding the appellant to be driver of the tractor at the time of accident is an illegal and perverse finding and on this ground interference in this appeal is sought for. Inviting my attention to the F.I.R., statement of witness so also finding recorded by the Criminal Court in the criminal case Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that once the Criminal Court has found that appellant was not driving the tractor holding him guilty of rash and negligent driving and consequently holding him jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation is unsustainable. That apart on merit it was argued that assessment of compensation, age of deceased have not been properly done, Bajanti Bai who is a married daughter has also been counted as dependent for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Accordingly Mr. M.P. Agrawal submits that on merit also the amount of compensation awarded being on the higher side the same requires interference.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Chauhan and Mr. R.S. Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and by taking me through the evidence and documents that have come on record, submit that it is the appellant who was driving the tractor and, therefore, no interference in the matter is called for.