SOMA DEVI Vs. KRISHAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.9.1986, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, camp at Bilaspur, whereby the claim petition of the appellants claimants was dismissed holding that the accident in which Dharam Singh had died had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HPB 1024. However, under Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the appellants claimants were awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000/ in equal shares against no fault liability payable by respondent insurance company holding that there was no sale of the tractor by respondent Krishan Ram in favour of respondent Lekh Ram.

(2.) APPELLANT claimant Soma Devi is the widow, Jashodha Devi is the mother and Ashok Kumar, Rishi Paul, Sunita Kumari, Anju, Raj Kumari are the sons and daughters and Lekh Ram is the brother of deceased Dharam Singh, who had died in the accident of the tractor on 8.10.1983. They had filed claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ alleging that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor against respondents Krishan Ram as well as Lekh Ram on the ground that they had entered into an agreement for the sale of the tractor. Respondent Krishan Ram had denied his liability claiming that the tractor in question was sold to respondent Lekh Ram who had also denied his liability on the ground that he was not the owner of the tractor as its sale was not complete before the accident had taken place. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company had taken a definite stand that since the tractor was transferred by the insured, the privity of contract of insurance stood automatically revoked. Though no separate issue was framed on the objection of respondent insurance company yet it was covered under issue No. 2 whether the appellants claimants were entitled to any compensation and to what amount and from whom? This issue was answered in negative without dealing with the objection of the respondent insurance company as the Claims Tribunal had come to the conclusion that accident had not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.

(3.) TO prove the negligence of the driver of the tractor, the appellants claimants have produced Deep Ram, PW 2, who happened to be at the place of accident at the time it had occurred. According to him, deceased Dharam Singh was walking on the kacha portion of the road towards khud when the ill fated tractor, which was being driven at a high speed by its driver, crushed him. He has further stated that at the time of accident Dharam Singh had got down from the tractor and was guiding its driver for the purpose of reversing it so that stones could be loaded in its trolley from Makhni Khud. He has also stated that Dharam Singh had taken lease to extract stones from Makhni Khud which is at a distance of about 200 yards from bridge Bhakyunda. In his cross examination, this witness has stated that he had worked as coolie in the mine of Dharam Singh. The cleaner of the truck, namely, Kaku Ram, who also received injuries in the accident in question, had appeared as witness in the connected case. As per this witness, his house is at a distance of 100 yards from the house of Dharam Singh and about one kilometre from the place of accident. He has denied that Dharam Singh was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of accident. Though, he had appeared at the instance of appellants claimants but he has denied that he was deposing falsely as they were his co villagers.