STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PREMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order, the connected Misc. (F) Appeal No. 253/73 (State of M.P. v. Smt. Budhi Devi) is also disposed of. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident. Two Claim Cases were consolidated and tried together by the Claims Tribunal. The State has preferred these appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the awards of compensation granted to the claimants amounting to Rs. 10,400/- and Rs. 12,720/- respectively.

(2.) The facts not in dispute are that on 3-8-1971 at 7 p.m., the jeep No. MPA 5586 which bore the emblem of UNICEF was invloved in an accident on the Rewa-Gurha road resulting in the instantaneous death of two pedestrians Ramavtar and Shivprasad. It is also not in serious dispute that the jeep in question was being driven rashly and negligently and that the two pedestrians were going by the left side of the road when they were run over. Shivprasad's widow Prembai preferred a claim before the Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 1,26,000/- for the death of her husband, while Budhi Devi widow of Ramavtar preferred a claim of Rs. 86,000/- for the death of her husband. According to them. Kusum, respondent No. 2 was driving the jeep rashly and negligently, the jeep belonged to the State Government and the driver was in its employment in the Raipur Development Block. After the filing of the written statement it was pleaded in the alternative that even if the Panchayat Inspector, Shrinivas Tiwari-respondent No. 3 was driving the jeep, the State would be still liable for the two deaths. At the time of the accident, Ramavtar was aged 23 years and he was a student in the final year of B.Sc. while Shivprasad was aged 22 years and he was Matriculate and passed ITI training in Telephones. The appellant-State contended that as the jeep was owned by UNICEF and was intended to carry out their applied nutrition programme, the State Government was not liable for any compensation. In the alternative it was pleaded that at the time the jeep was engaged in discharge of the sovereign functions of the State Government and as such it cannot be made liable for any compensation. The driver respondent No. 2 contended that the Panchayat Inspector Shrinivas Tiwari was actually driving the jeep at the relevant time and due to his rash and negligent driving with high speed and with defective brakes, the accident had occurred, resulting in two deaths. The respondent No. 3, on the other hand, contended that he was not driving the jeep, but it was being driven by the driver-respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,400/- to Premabai and Rs. 12,720/ to Budhi Devi. The Tribunal held that respondent No. 2 was driving the Vehicle rashly and negligently. The jeep was being driven for official duty, but not in discharge of sovereign functions of the State. Technically the ownership of the vehicle was with the UNICEF, but for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government being in possession and in administrative control of the jeep would be deemed to be the owner and liable to pay the compensation for the acts of its driver respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by this award, the State Government has preferred these two appeals. There is no cross-objection by the claimants.

(3.) The questions for considerations are: (i) whether the jeep was driven by the driver respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently causing the two deaths, (ii) whether the State Government can be made liable for the acts of its driver when it was not owner of the jeep; and (iii) whether the amounts of compensation awarded are excessive;