M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. SAIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, owner and its employee, the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. MPF 8470, directed against the Award dated 24-7-1979 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 9/77 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the respondent-claimants who are the brother and the brother's son respectively of the deceased Kallu who died as a result of the accident caused by the said bus at 6.00 a.m. on 9-1-1977 at Maszid Choraha, Sailana while the bus was being taken to the bus-stand.

(2.) THE learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, found that the offending bus at the time of the accident was driven by one Kishore Singh respondent No. 3 and not by the driver Narain-appellant No. 2. The learned Tribunal further found that Kishore Singh was driving the but in question with the consent of the driver Narain and was bringing the bus to the bus-stand from where it used to ply on its route. The driver Narain instead of himself doing that job which was a part of his duty had assigned that task to Kishore Singh respondent No.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has considered both these contentions raised on behalf of the owner and the driver of the bus and decided the same against them. As regards the first contention, the learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was unmarried and that he was supporting his brother's sod Zaqui Anwer-respondent No. 2 by meeting his expenses of maintenance and education etc In the facts and circumstances of this case, the brother of the deceased is certainty a legal representative of the deceased who received support from the deceased for his son's maintenance and education and as such, he is entitled to maintain a petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Rananbhai Prabhat-bhai and Anr. . It has been observed therein as under: The brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition Under Section 110-A if he is a legal representative of the deceased. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sub-sections 110-A to ll0-Ft These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed Under Section 110-A have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. It is to be remembered that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny their compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents.