SHINGARA RAM Vs. BALAK RAM WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the parents of a boy, aged about 16, who met with a fatal accident on March 3, 1985 at about 8-30 A.M. on the Palampur Lahla Road near village Gharthoon, Tehsil Palampur, when the truck (HPK-4279) owned by the first respondent and driven at the material time by the second respondent rolled down in a khud. The appellants instituted a claim petition against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamsala, Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 92,000/-. The claim petition was returned to the appellants for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) THE case of the appellants was that on March 3, 1985 the Prime Minister was to address an election meeting in the campus of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Palampur. The vehicle in question was requisitioned by One Brij Behari Lal Butail (respondent No. 3 whose name has been ordered to be struck off vide order of the day passed separately), who was a contesting candidate at the election, for the purposes of carrying members of the public to the site of the meeting. The deceased, alongwith others, was given a lift in the vehicle from village Hangloh (Lahla) and he was travelling therein when it reached village Gharthoon. The second respondent halted the vehicle there for picking up some more persons. He parked the vehicle on a katcha danga on the shoulder of the road although on the opposite side there was sufficient space to park the same on the road itself. The katcha danga gave way since it could not sustain the load of the vehicle. The vehicle rolled down in a khud and the deceased, who was crushed under the vehicle, met with instantaneous death. According to the appellants, the cause of the accident was the negligent act on the part of the second respondent during the course of his employment with the first respondent in parking the vehicle on a dang l oaths-katcha portion of the road without taking proper care and precaution and without ascertaining and verifying whether the said danga could have taken the load of the vehicle which was carrying so many passengers.

(3.) THE case of the fourth respondent-Insurance Company was that the accident did not take place in the manner alleged by the appellants and that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger no liability to satisfy the award could be fixed on the said respondent.