M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ANIL NARENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellants have called in question the sustainability of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Claim Case No. 18 of 1992.

(2.) THE facts, as have been unfurled, are that the respondent, a minor being represented by his guardian, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act putting forth a claim of Rs. 1,19,000 against the present appellant, namely, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and its employees. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that on December 22, 1989, at about 2. 30 p. m. the claimant accompanied by a girl named Sangeeta was proceeding on the side of the road from PK-1 to PK-2. At that juncture the vehicle, which was engaged by the Board for loading coal, dashed against a wall being negligently driven by the driver as a result of which the said wall fell on the claimant who sustained serious injuries. He availed of treatment from December 22, 1989, to January 5, 1990, and eventually his leg was amputated. Because of the injuries sustained by him he put forth a claim of Rs. 1,19,000 on various heads.

(3.) THE claim petition of the claimant was resisted by the Board contending that the claimant had sustained injuries due to the fall of the wall and the vehicle, the bulldozer, was driven carefully by the driver of the Board, and hence, no liability could be fastened on the Board. It was further put forth that the vehicle was driven inside the private premises and vehicle in question being not a motor vehicle, the claim application was not maintainable before the Tribunal.