G. P. SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award, dated 31st March, 1977, made by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Sidhi.

( 2 ) THE deceased A. S. Rawat, who was a Divisional Forest Officer in the State forest Service, died in a Motor accident on 18th April, 1975. The deceased was then posted at Satna. He was going from Satna to Bargawa in a Government jeep in the normal course of his employment. The jeep was driven by mohammad Ali (respondent No. 5) who is employed as a Forest Guard but was authorised to drive the ieep as a part of his duty. The jeep overturned near village Gopalpur. The deceased received multiple injuries on his head and other parts of his body as a result of which he died while on way to the hospital. The claim for compensation against the State and the driver Mohammad Ali was lodged by the widow of the deceased and three minor daughters. By the award under appeal, the Tribunal has allowed Rs. 82,000/- as damages to the claimants. Interests at the rate of 6% has also been allowed from the date of the award till payment. The State has come up in appeal against this award. The claimants have filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the award.

( 3 ) THE first question that arises in this appeal is whether the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle as a result of which it overturned. The driver was examined as N. A. W. 3. Another witness who was examined on the same point is S. C. Shrivastava (N. A. W. 2) The evidence of these witnesses, specially that of the driver, discloses that the vehicle at the time of accident was negotiating a hill. It was running at a speed of 30 to 40 Kms. per hour. On the left side of the road was the sleep hill and on the right side a deep ravine. A herd of goats which was on one of the sides of the road, suddenly came towards the middle of the road. The driver tried to save the goats and applied the brakes which resulted in the overturning of the vehicle. The driver of a motor vehicle has to be very cautious while negotiating a hill. More caution is needed when animals are seen on the sides of the road because it is common experience that their behaviour on the approach of a motor vehicle is uncertain. The speed of a motor vehicle to be termed reasonable, must be adjusted to the circumstances of the case. Having regard to the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the speed of 30 to 40 Kms. at which the jeep was being driven at the relevant time, was a reasonable speed. It is not the case of the driver that the goats were not visible from a distance. A reasonable driver would have foreseen the possibility of the goats straying on the road on the apporach of the vehicle and would have considerably reduced the speed. In our opinion, the driver was clearly negligent in not slowing down the vehicle which would have avoided sudden application of brakes and the overturning of the vehicle.

( 4 ) IT was submitted before us that the vehicle was not in a fit condition and that it was because of its bad condition that the accident happended and not because of any negligence of the driver. It was argued that the deceased was in know of the fact that the vehicle was not in a fit condition and still he took the hazard of travelling in it and, therefore, the State is not liable. In our opinion, there is absolutely no merit in this argument. It is true, as appears from the evidence of the driver, that the vehicle had earlier also been involved in some accidents, but it does not follow from this evidence that the vehicle was not roadworthy and not fit for use. The vehicle was examined next day after the accident by a mechanic of the police department. The report of this inspection is Ex. D-3 which goes to show that the vehicle was perfectly in order. This inspection report completely demolishes the argument that the deceased used the vehicle even though it was not in a fit condition.

( 5 ) AS the accident happened as a re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document