JASWANT SINGH Vs. KANIKA BALA DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Umesh Deka of Nagaon was travelling in a Matador on 21-8-1980. To his ill luck the vehicle met with an accident at a place called Patarkuchi within the jurisdiction of Gauhati P.S. He was hospitalised in Gauhali Medical College Hospital but could not survive. He met his end on 23-8-1980. A claim petition by his widow and parents was filed on 2-2-1981 claiming a sum of Rs. 6, 00, 000/- as compensation. The claim petition was on behalf of the children also two of whom were aged about 5 and 3 years at the relevant lime and one was born posthumously.

(2.) THE case of the claimants was that the accident was due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Guwahati on being satisfied about the negligence on the part of the driver awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 40, 000 as compensation together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent calculable from the dale of the filing of the petition till realisation. The award was passed jointly and severally against the owner and insurer. A sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded as costs. Feeling aggrieved the owner and insurer have approached this court. Cross-objections have also been filed by the claimants.

(3.) DESPITE the above evidence it is contended by Mr. Agarwal that even if the snapping of drag link had taken place at the time of the accident, if the driver acted cautiously and carefully the vehicle could have been stopped by applying brakes. In this connection our attention has been invited to the evidence of the MVI who deposed that if any vehicle is driven at a speed of 30/35 kmph (as was the vehicle driven according to DW 3) and the driver applies brakes immediately after the detachment of drag link the vehicle can be stopped. By relying on this evidence it is contended by the learned Counsel that the vehicle was not being driven at a speed of 30/35 kmph as deposed by the driver of the vehicle, but was being driven rashly. We accept the submission of Mr. Agarwal and hold that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently was correct and we endorse the same. This being the position, the claimants arc entitled to just compensation.