HARDEVA RAM Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parents, the brothers and the sisters have challenged the award dated 23. 10. 98 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nim-Ka-Thana, District Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal',), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by them on account of death of Mahipal, the son of appellant No. 1 and 2 and the brother of appellant Nos. 3 to 6.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that on 8. 11. 94 in the evening Mahipal was going on his motorcycle alongwith his friend Subhash Yadav (AW. 3 ). Allegedly, around 6. 40 p. m. when the motorcycle reached near Navodaya Vidhyalaya in village Patan, a tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-23-R-1407 came from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. Consequently the tank of the motorcycle burst and Mahipal was burnt. He was immediately rushed to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur where he scummed to his injuries on 13. 12. 94. The appellants filed a claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 31,23,600/ -. In order to support of their case, they examined five witnesses and submitted 36 documents. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 examined a single witness and respondent No. 3 also examined a single witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the negligence of the offending tractor could not be proved. In fact, from the testimony of A. W. 3 Subhash Yadav, it was clearly proved that the negligence was that of Mahipal and not of the driver of the tractor. Since the accident had occurred due to negligence of the Mahipal himself, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) SECTION 163-A of the Act is as under :- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" 163a. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extend as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923 ). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. "