KRISHNI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla Division, Camp at Bilaspur, against the respondent No. 1, Amar Nath, owner, Parkash Chand, driver and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., insurer of tractor bearing registration No. 7141. Appellant No. 1 is the widow, appellant No. 2 is the minor daughter and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are minor sons of late Inder Dev. During the course of proceedings pending before the Tribunal, parents of the deceased, namely, Himi and Sairu, were impleaded as proforma respondents and in the present appeal they are arrayed as appellant Nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) CASE as pleaded by the appellants was that deceased Inder Dev was working as a beldar in Beas Sutlej Link Project at Slapper Colony, District Mandi, H.P. On 21.1.1983 deceased along with three other-passengers are stated to have taken lift in the tractor near Slapper. These passengers were to get down at Barmana. It was further pleaded by the appellants that since the deceased and other co-passengers were to get down near Barmana, they asked the driver to stop the same there. The driver of the tractor was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and when he was asked to stop it, he applied the brakes and again started the tractor immediately, on account of this rash and negligent act of the driver, deceased Inder Dev fell down from the tractor and was crushed underneath the tyre of the tractor. The appellants claimed that they were solely dependent upon the deceased and they have lost the sole breadwinner. It may be pointed out here that along with the deceased the other co-passengers with him at the relevant point of time were Hari Singh, PW 6, Nika Ram, PW 7 as well as Chet Ram, RW 2. In these premises a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 was claimed by the appellants, as according to them the deceased was getting wages of Rs. 670/- p.m. and was further earning Rs. 600/- by working as a cobbler.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 pleaded that the tractor was not a vehicle for carriage of passengers, accordingly, he was not liable for the payment of any compensation. Further, he had not authorised respondent No. 2 to take the passengers, so the act of the driver was unauthorised and illegal not falling within the scope of his authority as an employee, therefore, he was not liable. This respondent further pleaded that appellant No. 1 was not the legally wedded wife of deceased, as such the petition was not maintainable.