R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant challenges the judgement and award dated 26th December 1985 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda, at Nadiad in M. A. C. Petition No. 175 of 1983, by which the respondents - claimants were awarded an amount of Rs. 1,04,000=00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation and proportionate costs.

( 2 ) THE accident took place on 6th October 1982 on Nadiad - Petlad road in the outskirts of village Rangaipura. At that time, the deceased alongwith others had gone to village Ravipura at the place of the respondent No. 6 by his tractor and trailer. After replacing the transformer, the damaged transformer was kept in the trailer. The deceased Mahemudbeg also sat in that trailer and they all were returning from village Ravipura. The tractor was at that time being driven by the respondent No. 5. According to the claimants, it was driven at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the tractor was passing from near the outskirts of village Rangaipura, at about 3. 00 p. m. , the driver lost his control, as a result of which the tractor climbed down the eastern edge of the road and fell in a ditch turning turtle. The deceased got pressed under the damaged transformer and sustained injuries. He was carried to the hospital at Petlad, and thereafter to Baroda, where he died on 8-10-1992 at noon. The deceased was about 28 years of age when he died. He was a permanent employee working as a Helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board with a salary of Rs. 300=00 per month. On holidays, he used to do repairing jobs and earn Rs. 125=00 per month. The claimants therefore prayed for an award of Rs. 1,50,000=00 by way of compensation.

( 3 ) THE claim was contested by the owner, driver as well as the insurance company. The owner and driver have not challenged the award and therefore, we do not set out their defence taken up before the Tribunal, which is narrated in the judgement. The insurance company i. e. appellant in its written statement exh. 23, inter alia, contended that the driver did not have a valid license and that though vehicle was meant for use of agricultural purposes and the permit was only to that effect, it was used for carrying passengers free of charge and thereby, there was breach of the terms of the policy absolving the insurance company from any liability. The insurance company in its written statement had denied the existence of the policy itself on the ground that it was unable to trace it out, but latter on, the policy came to be produced on the record at exh. 46.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal, on the basis of the material on record, came to a finding that it was proved that Mahemudbeg had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor - trailer in question. While examining the aspect of negligence, the Tribunal rightly discarded the defence of inevitable accident put up by the owner and its driver. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there was no mention in the panchnama of any damage caused to the diaphragm. The Tribunal came to a finding that the applicants had succeeded in proving that the deceased sustained vital injuries which resulted in his death, on account of rash and negligent act of driving of the tractor. This finding which has been given for valid and cogent reasons is not questioned before us.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions before us. He argued that the amount of Rs. 30,000=00 which was received by way of compensation by the claimants from the employer - Gujarat Electricity Board as per the deposition of Ghanshyambhai who was the employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board, should have been deducted by the Tribunal under section 110aa of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 from the amount of compensation which was awarded. 5. 1 in support of this contention, he drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document