UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, [988 (henceforth 'the Act') filed by the nsurance company, against the award of iamages to the extent of Rs. 63,600 and nterest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum Tom 28.11.1994 in favour of respondent ^Jos. 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and 3. It appears :hat the respondent No. 2 (c) has died duirng the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his name has been deleted.

(2.) The Claims Tribunal had come to the ;onclusion that the appellant was liable to Day damages to the extent of Rs. 63,600 to the claimants on the ground that accident occurred on account of the use of ractor-trolley. It was held by Claims Tribunal specifically that Naresh suffered spinal injuries when the trolley was being unloaded of the tiles contained in it. The :rolley was in a stationary position and A'as relatively steady at that time and then t turned turtle suddenly. It became unbalanced because on the back side of it :here was heavy load and Sunderlal who was the driver of the tractor, had taken out :he tiles from the front portion making the whole vehicle unbalanced. The tractor and trolley were standing on the undulating ground and the effect of removal of tiles from the front portion was that it turned turtle causing injuries to Naresh who died after suffering injuries. Naresh suffered fracture in the back portion and in the spine also. The accident has taken place on 28.5.1994 and Naresh died on 6.11.1994 while undergoing treatment.

(3.) On these findings, the Claims Tribunal granted the aforesaid compensation drawing an adverse inference against the appellant. The Claims Tribunal rejected the argument that at the relevant time the driver was not having a regular driving licence and, therefore, the appellant was not liable. The Claims Tribunal found that respondent No. 4, Sunderlal was holding a learner's licence on the date of accident, i.e., 28.5.94. But, it held that it was of no consequence as the vehicle was not being driven by the respondent No. 4, Sunderlal at the relevant time. It was in a stationary condition. Therefore, question of negligence by driving a vehicle does not arise.