ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed by Manthani Kittamma the wife of the deceased Manthani Shanker, against the judgment and decree dated 27-12-1994 in OP No. 152 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman (I Additional District Judge), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar, for enhancement of compensation, for the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 12-12-1993 at about 10-00 a. m. when the deceased was working in Kallam of Manthani Rajaiah for thrashing the paddy crop the first respondent being driver of the tractor bearing No. AIF-693 engaged by the said Rajaiah, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and it gave jerks and the gears of the tractor failed and it fell on the deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the widow claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased.

( 2 ) THE claim was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2, owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, denying the assertions and averments made in the petition that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and stated that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant, excessive and therefore, liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issue:whether the petition is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, if so, to what amount?the Tribunal recorded the evidence of PWI the widow of the deceased, who stated that her husband was working in kallam for thrashing paddy, the respondent No. 1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased received injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Manthani where he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased working as an agricultural labour and was earning Rs. 1200. 00 per month. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex. A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report and Ex. A3 is the certified copy of charge-sheet while Ex. A4 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector s report. Ex. A5 is the certified copy of the post-mortem report.

( 4 ) BASED on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It rejected the contention of the respondents that the accident was occurred due to the failure of gears, therefore, due to mechanical defect the accident was occurred and the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. Though it is mentioned in the FIR, that the accident was occurred due to the mechanical defect, the driver has to take care of the vehicle before driving it. Therefore, I am satisfied with the findings arrived by the Tribunal below that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

( 5 ) IT is pertinent to note that the Motor Vehicles Inspector who inspected vehicle at the outskirts of Kannala village which was removed from the scene of accident on 16-12-1993 at 15-00 hours and stated that the left side mudguard, steering, wheel, bonnet, radiotor, right hand side mudguard were damaged, steering rod, hose pipe and fan belt were also damaged. According to him, the accident did not take place due to the mechanical defects in the vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Inspector is a competent person to tender his opinion whether or not the accident was occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the reasons arrived at by the Tribunal below rejecting the compensation as claimed by the appellant on the ground that the adopted father of the deceased himself has not stated in his complaint to the police that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver. As seen from the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who is a co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document