SHAMBHOO SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 11. 10. 1996 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Biaora) in claim Case No. 8 of 1989 whereby compensation of Rs. 15,000 was granted.

( 2 ) THE appellants-claimants' case, in brief, was that on 14. 11. 88 the respondent-non-applicant No. 1, the owner and the driver of Matador bearing registration No. MID 9056 took the deceased Gulabsingh in his vehicle and left Sarangpur for Rajgarh for bringing one patient to Indore. When they came 6 km. towards Pachore, the vehicle left the road and dashed against a tree as it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained injuries. He was taken to Biaora Hospital where he died on the next day, i. e. , on 15. 11. 1988. Respondent No. 1 lodged false report at P. S. Rajgarh that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased. The deceased was working as helper in M. P. E. B. on the salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. Respondent No. 1 contested the claim. He admitted that the deceased died in the motor accident. His case was that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by deceased himself. He pleaded that this vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and in case if claimants are found entitled to compensation it has to be paid by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 also contested the claim and in indirect way admitted the death of the deceased in motor accident and in alternative it was pleaded that the vehicle was not insured and if it was found to have been insured, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that it was not proved that the deceased was driving the said vehicle. However, it awarded the compensation of rs. 15,000 under no fault liability under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claimants have come up in appeal for the enhancement of compensation amount.

( 3 ) MR. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned tribunal committed error in awarding only rs. 15,000 under no fault liability. He submitted that it has been proved from the evidence of Sitabai that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in question and he had taken the deceased with him and the respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, therefore, it ought to have been held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, supported the impugned award.

( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides and perused the record. The learned Tribunal considered the statements of the witnesses which are not on record of this case. It appears that he must have seen the casediary of the offence under section 304-A, indian Penal Code registered in connection with this accident. However, it has come in the evidence of Sitabai, the widow of the deceased that on the date of accident, the respondent No. 1 Ishak Mohd. (owner and driver of this vehicle) had come to her house driving his vehicle. He called her husband and got him seated by his side on the cleaner side. She made it clear that her husband did not know how to drive. The respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination of Sitabai which may render her testimony unreliable. From her evidence it is clear that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle. He called the deceased and got him seated by his side. Admittedly, this vehicle met with accident on Agra-Bombay Road, 6 km. away from sarangpur towards Pachore. It left the road and dashed against a tree. The respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle, when he brought the deceased from his house. He did not enter into the witness-box. Under such circumstances

Click Here to Read the rest of this document