KRISHAN Vs. TARAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of the owner who unsuccessfully resisted a case for claim of compensation. The claimants were representatives of the deceased who had seated himself on the mudguard of the tractor and came under the wheels when he got tossed out in an uneven bumpy road. The version of the driver was that he was not aware of the deceased sitting on the mudguard, but he must have climbed behind without his knowledge and fallen down on a bumpy road as the tractor was moving. The Tribunal, however, rejected this plea and held that by the fact that he got crushed between the mudguard and the tyre, he must have been seated on the mudguard and found the negligence as established. Learned counsel for the appellant would state that rashness and negligence cannot be attributed in a situation like this and principally, if the condition of the road was such that a person who was seated on the mudguard falls down, no negligence could be attributed to the driver.

(2.) These are hard situations where it will be impermissible to allow for principles like volunte non fit injuria by stating that the deceased must have known that it was dangerous to travel on a mudguard and therefore, no claim of compensation would lie. A tractor by the very nature of things is not equipped to carry passengers, but it is a virtual reality in rural areas where even apart from the driver, many of the farm labourers hop-on to every conceivable inch of the tractor to seat themselves. If the accident takes place in such a course, perhaps, the insurance company may not become liable. There would exist no policy cover for a claim arising out of such an accident, but the driver who propels the tractor by his driving and the owner by such ownership will invariably have to answer the claim arising out from Such a cause.

(3.) It is also stated that in the criminal ease the witnesses contradicted themselves in their versions to what they stated before the Tribunal. This cannot make the position better, for, a criminal Court's judgment acquitting a driver would have no relevance in a case before the Tribunal. The standards of proof of a criminal case are different from tortuous claims for accident victims that are required to be established before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider the issue of negligence by the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by the fact of pendency of the criminal case or acquittal given by the criminal Court. It will be relevant no more than the fact that a criminal case had been registered and that it had concluded before the criminal Court. It cannot be used for any other purpose, unless it is a case of conviction rendered on admission before the criminal Court where the conviction by the criminal Court on an issue of negligence will have immense value before the Tribunal.