MUNICIPAL COUNCIL/COMMITTEE Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question of law which arises for adjudication in this appeal is whether compensation for death can be awarded to a claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short, 'the Act' ) even though the death is not caused due to the direct impact of the motor vehicle.

(2.) A brief factual background of the case would help us in deciding the aforementioned question in a correct perspective. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation with the allegations that there daughter Karamjit Kaur was killed on 15. 9. 1992 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. PJS-9081 belonging to the Municipal Committee, Sunam. They alleged that in the process of removal of alleged unauthorised construction, the- tractor belonging to the Municipal Committee was used to bring down the wall and roof of the house of the respondents and as a result of the impact of tractor, debris of wall and roof fell on a child who was declared dead when brought to the hospital. The Municipal Committee, the driver and the United India Insurance Company with which the tractor was insured, resisted the claim filed by respondents 1 and 2. On its part, the Municipal Committee pleaded that the claimant Tara Singh had encroached upon the municipal land and the tractor had to be pressed into service for removing that encroachment and further that due to lack of control by the parents, the child was killed due to falling of debris of wall and the roof. The Municipal Committee also pleaded that the driver of the tractor could not know that the child was standing on the opposite side of the wall and, therefore, no compensation should be given to the claimants. The Insurance Company raised the plea of invalidity of the licence of the tractor driver to absolve itself from the liability to pay compensation.

(3.) ON the basis of these findings, the Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 60,000/4. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Municipal Committee could not be held liable to pay compensation because the death of the child was not caused due to the direct contact of the tractor and, therefrom it cannot be treated as a case of death caused due to use of motor vehicle. He further argued that collapse of the wall or the roof cannot be attributed to the use of motor vehicle. Learned counsel also argued that the tractor driver could not see the child standing on the opposite side of the wall when the tractor was being used for demolition and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation.