SAVITRI Vs. LAKHMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M.A No. 151 of 1984 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitribai).

(2.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 16.3.1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 6 of 1977 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 31,600/ - as compensation with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in respect of the death of deceased Jagdishchandra, who died as a result of motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. RSL 3891 belonging to Respondent No. 1 and being driven by the driver -Respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident on 12.9.1976.

(3.) ON a claim petition having been filed by the claimants who are widow and 4 children of the deceased Jagdishchandra, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case held that at the time of the accident the truck was not being driven in any rash and negligent manner but control over it was lost during reverse movement on gradient due to clutch and brake failure resulting in consequent dash against the said culvert as well as the deceased sitting thereon who then died as a result of the injuries so sustained. The learned Tribunal further held that the driver and owner cannot escape liability since they failed to discharge the burden of proving that they took all precautionary steps towards the maintenance of the vehicle in question and the mechanical breakdown was despite such maintenance. In this case the Transport Inspector Umashankar, PW 6, had examined the truck after the accident and stared that the nuts and bolts of the top -cover of the truck had loosened because of which the clutch -plate slipped. Nothing is stated about the failure of brakes. In the circumstances disagreeing with the finding of the learned Tribunal, we hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. The owner of the truck must be held vicariously liable for the act of the driver. The finding of the learned Tribunal about the negligence of the driver and the owner of the truck in taking precautionary steps towards proper maintenance of the truck is, however, affirmed.