A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the award dated 25. 8. 1990 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rajgarh in Case No. 21 of 1985.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that a claim petition was filed by gayatri Bai (widow of deceased), minor daughter Lata Kumari and father Girdharilal of the deceased Pradeep Kumar who died on 9. 5. 1985 at Jirapur bus stand. Respondent Ahmadji was the owner of the bus No. MPU 5057 and respondent No. 2 afjal and respondent No. 3 Govind were driver and cleaner respectively of the bus. The bus was being plied between Jirapur and Shujalpur. Deceased Pradeep Kumar was working as a conductor of the bus. On 9. 5. 85, the bus was standing at bus stand jirapur and the driver and the cleaner had raised the chassis of the bus over a jack for the purpose of changing the spring. Deceased Pradeep Kumar was sitting by the side. On account of rash and negligent act of the driver and the cleaner, the jack slipped and consequently the deceased got pressed between the mudguard and the wheels of the bus and ultimately succumbed to the injury on the spot. The bus was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of occurrence of the accident and he would have lived up to 60 years and he was earning rs. 750 per month. Therefore, a claim petition for Rs. 3,99,000 was preferred by the claimants. The respondents admitted the accident but they denied that the act of the respondents was rash or negligent. It was further alleged that the deceased was earning wages of Rs. 300 per month. The insurance company also contested the claim and denied its liability. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, about six issues were framed by the Tribunal. The claimants examined Gayatri Bai, PW 1, Gir-dharilal, PW 2, Bherulal, PW 3, Banarsilal, pw 4, Ibtilal, PW 5, S. K. Joshi, PW 6 and dr. K. K. Gidwani, PW 7. The witnesses were not cross-examined by the respondents except Dr. Gidwani and no evidence was led by any of the non-claimants. It is also alleged that in the criminal case which was registered against the respondents driver and cleaner under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, they pleaded guilty and they were fined Rs. 200 each.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died in this accident and that the act of the respondents was rash and negligent. The Tribunal further found that the deceased was earning rs. 750 per month as per evidence of gayatri Bai, Girdharilal, Bherulal and S. K. Joshi. The Tribunal also found that the deceased's wife Gayatri Bai was 24 years old, and his daughter was aged 13 months. It held that out of Rs. 750, the deceased might be spending at least Rs. 350 on himself and Rs. 400 per month on his family. Therefore, the yearly dependency was worked out at Rs. 4,800. The Tribunal further held that as per the testimony of Dr. Gidwani, PW 7, the age of the deceased was 28 years and, therefore, multiplier of 16 was applied and total compensation was worked out at Rs. 4,800 x 16 = rs. 76,800 and also the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition, i. e. , 5. 10. 1985.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal further observed that though the act of the driver and the cleaner was rash and negligent but the bus was not operating at the time of occurrence and it was standing; therefore, the words 'use of the motor vehicle' are very important and have to be interpreted whether this will include a stationary vehicle or not. The Tribunal after referring some of the decisions in the cases of Bengal-Bihar Construction company v. State of M. P. , 1982 Weekly note SN 354; Sewaram v. Nanne Khan, 1987 ACJ 354 (MP) and Manoj Kumar mundi v. Hari Gopal Rao Devasthale, 1978 ACJ 92 (MP), came to the conclusion that in the present case, the vehicle was parked and it was not being used and, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was in use and as such, it dismisse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document