KARTIKRAM KUSHALIRAM DHIMAR Vs. CHANDRAGOPAL RAMLAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 16-1-1995, passed in Claim Case No. 54/90 by Vth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : Appellants are the parents who along with Nirmalabai the widow of the deceased Ishwari Prasad the son of the appellants, filed an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short Act of 1939') to claim compensation of Rs. 2,37,500. 00 for the death of Ishwari Prasad caused in motor accident occurred on 27-12-1987 by the use of tractor No. MKS 9373 and its trolley driven by respondent No. 1 owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. At the relevant time, the deceased was sitting on the tractor, while other co-agricultural labourers were sitting in trolley. At about 2. 30 a. m. when tractor was near Dhaneli on Gharsiwa Raipur Road, the tractor turned turtle because of the breakage of the connecting rod of tractor-trolley. The respondent No. 1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim. The respondent No. 2 in his reply submitted that Nirmalabai has remarried, therefore, she has ceased to be a legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, her name be deleted. As to entitlement of parents it was submitted that parents are not the dependents, are not entitled to compensation. Rash and negligent act on the part of the tractor driver was denied and the plea of inevitable accident due to mechanical breakdown, that is breakage of connecting rod was raised. The respondent No. 3 in its reply besides denying the claim and stating that the accident was not caused due to any rash and negligent act of the driver, the accident was inevitable due to latent mechanical defect, contended that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for his death as he was sitting on the mudguard. In any case, the respondent No. 3 cannot be made liable to pay compensation as in terms of the policy which was insured for Agricultural and Forestry purpose and not for carrying passenger.

(3.) ON objection of the respondents that Nirmalabai has remarried with one Santram on 23-12-1988 her name was deleted from the array of applicants.