STATE Vs. VIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant State against the award dated 23/9/1997 passed by the MACT, Prabatsar deciding claim case no. 129/90.

(2.) ON 21/4/1990 at 3. 40 pm when the deceased Dr. K. C. Jain was going by the jeep (Maruti Gypsy) belonging to Director, Family welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur on Govt. duty from Parbatsar to chittorgarh, the said Maruti Gypsy, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 Sajjan Singh met with an accident. On account of said accident, Dr. K. C. Jain suffered injuries and died on the same day at 5. 45 pm in Govt. hospital. The claim petition was filed by his widow and children claiming compensation of Rs. 28,12000/ -. Deciding the various issues in favour of the claimants, the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8 lacs as compensation in favour of claimants for the said death of Dr. K. C. Jain, who was 45 years of age at the time of accident and working as Junior orthopedic Doctor in govt. hospital. No cross objections have been filed nor the claimants appear to have filed any cross appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant State has preferred this appeal on the ground that the said death has not resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of said Gypsy by respondent no. 1 Sajjan Lal but on account of mechanical failure of said vehicle as the steering quarter-pin suddenly came out and steering became free and said Dr. K. C. Jain jumped out of the said vehicle and he died on account of injuries suffered by him due to said fall and, therefore, the appellant State is not liable to pay compensation in question. By the interim order dated 8/9/2005 passed after hearing both the parties, this Court directed that the appellant State may deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as against the award of Rs. 8 lacs, which appears to have been deposited with some delay and the said delay came to be condoned by this Court on 6/12/2007.

(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned award clearly indicates that the death in question has been caused out of the use of motor vehicle in question. Even assuming for argument sake that it resulted on account of mechanical failure as stated in memo of appeal, even then it will not take out the case out of the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act.