NIROTI Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karauli in Case No. 107 of 1992 on 14.3.1995, whereby his total claim had been dismissed.

(2.) It was alleged in the claim application that the deceased Ram Singh was crushed by the driver Gopal Singh, son of Birdha Singh on 28.2.1991 by truck No. RJD 8575. But later on application was moved for amendment of the claim application to the effect that the parties had come to know that the truck was being driven by one Kirori Mal and not by Gopal Singh and, therefore, Kirori Mal was also made party. The deceased was said to be of 18 years of age and his income was alleged to Rs. 3,000 p.m. The claim was filed by the parents and the younger brother and wife aged only 12 years at the time of filing of the claim, i.e., she was minor and the claim had been filed through her father-in-law. The defence was taken in the written statement that even according to the FIR the name of the driver had been mentioned as Kirori and not Gopal Singh. As per investigation made by the police, it is stated that Gopal Singh after taking out the key of the truck was sitting away from the truck when Kirori sat on the driver's seat and had asked the deceased Ram Singh to help him in starting the truck by opening the bonnet and linking the direct connection and when Ram Singh was standing in front of the truck and trying to start the truck, said Kirori made an effort to start the truck and all of a sudden truck started and not only the engine was put into motion but it also started moving with the result Ram Singh was crushed. It was stated by the respondent that the driver had no valid licence and even the owner had not permitted the said Kirori to sit on the steering seat. It was also one of the defence that Ram Singh deceased was as a matter of fact working as a labourer on the truck and, therefore, he should have filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Kirori had also filed a reply and denied the allegations and had stated that he was a poor man and was doing the work of mining. He had never driven the truck. The driver of the vehicle was Gopal and the present claim application has been filed only to harass him.