STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DIWANCHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE incident took place on 21.7.1977. A girl studying in B.A. Part I met her death due to the negligence of the driver of truck No. MPZ 7656, owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh. For her death, her parents laid a claim in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, for short, the Tribunal', in Claim Case No. 56 of 1977 MVA. State has appealed against the award passed against it.

(2.) WE have been taken through the pleadings and evidence to contest the decision of the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver and the award was not sustainable in law. However, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roman, because we are not able to accept the evidence of the driver. What is not disputed is that the truck was parked on a slope and the driver was not anywhere near the vehicle. It is also in evidence that no precaution or step was taken by the driver to secure the vehicle in such a way that it would not slide down the gradient. The girl Mamta was sitting at some distance from the vehicle on the back side of the vehicle. The truck suddenly moved down and ran over her and the death was instantaneous. In these circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur immediately becomes operative and the burden is shifted to the driver to satisfy the court that he was not negligent. Although the driver has given evidence that some girls had pushed the vehicle, the Tribunal has not believed him and we also do not propose to believe him. Those girls who were there were all students of degree class and it is difficult to conceive of the suggestion that they were playing mischief intentionally and indeed, there is no evidence on record to take the view that they had any animus against the deceased so as to cause her death by moving the vehicle in that manner. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that for the negligence of the driver, the claimants were entitled to be compensated for their daughter's death and that finding of the Tribunal is not liable to interference in our hands.

(3.) THE second grievance of Mr. Katare is that although the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -, a lump sum deduction of Rs. 4,500/ - was made and they have been held entitled to payment of a net amount of Rs. 24,500/ - only. That view of law, Mr. Katare submits, is not correct and indeed the fact is also that no lump sum payment has been made. We are satisfied that there is no statutory mandate that in every case, there shall be a deduction made from the compensation computed, if payment is made in a lump sum and indeed, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the deduction is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that the claimants/ Respondents shall be paid the full amount of compensation assessed, namely, Rs. 30,000/ -.