STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KISHORI PARAGNIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is aggrieved of the award dated 1-7-92 passed in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 40/87 by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadalpur, Baster has filed this appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are thus : Deceased Vyas Narayan aged 35 years, employed as Sub-Engineer, drawing monthly pay of Rs. 1728.85 was going on his motor-cycle No. M.B.Y. 4108 with a pillion rider one Bholaram Awasthy, from the opposite direction a Jeep No. M.P.P. 3979 owned by State, driven by appellant No. 2 was coming on the fateful day i.e. 26-3-1987 which on turning did not remain in control due to bursting of tyre and failure of breakes and dashed with the motor-cyclist, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application u/S. 110A of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'Act') to claim compensation of Rs. 3,08,000. The claim was contented on the ground that the accident was inevitable due to bursting of tyre and failure of breaks, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the appellants. In support of the defence, the appellants examined appellant No. 2 who was driving the Jeep at the relevant time. No. mechancial expert was examined or other evidence was adduced by the appellants to establish that the tyre was in road worthy condition. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties held that the accident was caused due to sole rash and negligent act of the Jeep driver. To award compensation the Tribunal estimated the dependency at Rs. 1000 per month, yearly Rs. 12,000, applying the multiplier of 16 worked out the compensation of Rs. 1,92,000, in that an amount of Rs. 5000 was added for pain and sufferings. Out of Rs. 1,97,000 a deduction of 20% towards lump sum payment and uncertainties of life was made, thus, Rs. 1,57,600 was awarded as compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment.

(3.) Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the accident was inevitable as the tyre bursted because of a sharp stone came under it. On this appellant No. 2 applied brakes, but, the brakes also failed due to bursting of tyre. In the circumstances the vehicle did not remain in control and dashed with the motor-cyclist. Learned counsel further submitted that the motor-cyclist also contributed to the accident as iinstead of blowing the horn, the motor-cyclist did not stop the vehicle and proceeded in the direction of the Jeep resulting in collision.