Back
S.K. Gangele, J.
Ramesh Chandra v. Smt. Shrivati and others
Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 130, 132 and 133 of 2006 (Gwalior) :
against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, passed
in Claim Cases No.84, 101 and 102 of 2005; Decided on 13.2.2009.
From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the theory developed by the present appellant with regard to change of ownership of the vehicle in favour of Santosh Singh Kushwah is afterthought and it has deliberately and cleverly done by the appellant to escape from the liability for payment of compensation. In the FIR Ex.P-2, it has clearly been mentioned that the tractor was of the ownership of Rameshchand. The accident occurred on 2.12.2004. It is said that the tractor was sold on 30.9.2004, however, there is no sale memo and only an affidavit of Santosh Singh Kushwah has been filed that he purchased the tractor. He himself admitted in his evidence that he was working as a labourer. He had no means even to submit an application for transfer of the ownership before the RTO.
Looking to the above facts of the case, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the present appellant is liable for payment of compensation being the owner of the tractor. (2001)8 SCC 748 followed. [Paras 15 & 16
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.173 and 168 -- power to award just compensation -- High Court can award just compensation even without filing of any cross-objection by the claimants.
After going through the award, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded a proper compensation. Although, no cross-objection has been filed by the claimants in all the appeals for enhancement of compensation, however, this Court in suo motu can enhance the compensation. (2008)3 SCC 379 followed. [Para 17
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.168 and Sch.II -- deceased earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. -- aged 22 years -- dependents father, mother, sister, brother and wife -- entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,23,000/-. [Para 18
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.168 -- deceased earning Rs.3,000/ - p.m. - aged 35 years -- leaving wife, sons and daughter -- entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/.
[Para 19
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.168 -- deceased earning Rs.3,000/ - p.m. -- aged 22 years -- leaving mother, father -- dependency comes to 50% only -- entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-. 2004 ACJ 184 (SC) 2008(2) TAC 756 (SC), MACD 2008(2) 420 and CA No. 10 of 2009 followed. [Para 20
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 50 && e-iz- eksVj ;ku fu;e] 1994 && fu-54 && ;ku dk varj.k bu mica/kksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k && vihykFkhZ dk uke {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds vfHkys[k esa Lokeh ds :i esa of.kZr && vihykFkhZ izfrdj dk lank; djus ds fy, nk;h gSA
ekeys ds mi;qZDr rF;ksa ls] ;g izdV gS fd larksk flag dq"kokg ds i{k esa ;ku ds LokfeRo ds ifjorZu ds laca/k esa izLrqr vihykFkhZ }kjk cukbZ xbZ dgkuh vuqcks/k gS rFkk ;g vihykFkhZ }kjk izfrdj ds lank; ds nkf;Ro ls cpus ds fy, tkucw> dj rFkk prqjkbZ ls fd;k x;k gSA izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ] izn"kZ ih&2 esa] ;g Li"V :i ls mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd VªSDVj ij jes"kpan dk LokfeRo FkkA nq?kZVuk2-12-2004 dks gqbZA ;g dgk x;k fd VªSDVj 30-9-2004 dks cspk x;k Fkk] rFkkfi] dksbZ fodz; Kkiu ugha gS rFkk dsoy larksk flag dq"kokg dk ‘kiFki= izLrqr fd;k x;k fd mlus VªSDVj [kjhn fy;kA mlus vius lk{; esa Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k fd og etnwj dh Hkk¡fr dk;Z dj jgk FkkA mlds ikl {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds le{k LokfeRo ds varj.k ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr djus rd ds fy, lk/ku ugha FkkA
ekeys ds mi;ZqDr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] esjh jk; esa] nkok vf/kdj.k us U;k;kuqlkj vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd izLrqr vihykFkhZ VªSDVj dk Lokeh gksu dkj.k izfrdj ds lank; ds fy, nk;h gSA ¼2001½8 ,l lh lh 748 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 16½
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 rFkk 168 && U;k;ksfpr izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr djus dh ‘kfDr && mPp U;k;ky; nkosnkjksa }kjk dksbZ izR;k{ksi Qkby fd, fcuk Hkh mfpr izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr dj ldrk gSA
vf/kfu.khZr ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~] esjh jk; esa] nkok vf/kdj.k us mfpr izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr ugha fd;k gSA ;|fi nkosnkjksa }kjk lHkh vihyksa esa izfrdj dh o`f) ds fy, izR;k{ksi Qkby ugha fd;k x;k gS] rFkkfi ;g U;k;ky; Loiszj.kk ls izfrdj esa o`f) dj ldrk gSA ¼2008½3 ,l lh lh 279 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 ,oa vuqlwph 2 && e`rd dk miktZu :- 3]000@& izfrekl && vk;q 22 o"kZ && vkfJr firk] ekrk] cgu] HkkbZ rFkk iRuh && :- 4]23]000@& ds dqy izfrdj ds gdnkjA ¼iSjk 18½
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 && e`rd dk miktZu :- 3]000@& izfrekl && vk;q 35 o"kZ && iRuh] iq=x.k rFkk iqf=;k¡ ihNs NksM+h && dqy izfrdj :- 3]99]000@& ds gdnkj gSaA ¼iSjk 19½
¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 && e`rd dk miktZu :- 3]000@& izfrekl && vk;q 22 o"kZ && ekrk&firk ihNs NksM+s && vkfJrrk dsoy 50 izfr‘kr vkrh gS && :- 2]85]000@& ds dqy izfrdj ds gdnkjA 2004 , lh ts 184 ¼,l lh½] 2008¼2½ Vh , lh 756 ¼,l lh½] ,e , lh Mh 2008¼2½ 420 rFkk lh , dz- 10 lu~ 2009 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20½
1. These three appeals have been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 18.10.2005, passed in Claim Cases No.84/05, 101/05 and 102/2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri. Because all the appeals have been filed against the same award and arisen out of the same accident, hence, the appeals have been heard together finally and disposed of by this common order.
2. On 2.12.2004, deceased Chandan Singh and other labourers had been coming in a tractor bearing registration No. MP33/M-0295 from a quarry lease. They had been sitting in a trolley attached to the aforesaid tractor. In the tractor trolley, stones were transported. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. Due to the aforesaid accident, labourers, who had been sitting in the trolley, namely, Chandan Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivlal died on the spot. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri and an offence, vide Crime No.665/05, was registered against the driver of the tractor. Thereafter, the dependents of all the three deceased, Chandan Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivlal, filed claim applications before the Claims Tribunal for compensation.
3. The claimants-dependents of deceased Chandan Singh filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Claim Case No.84/05, claiming total compensation of Rs.29,91 ,000/-. Similarly, the claimants-dependents, who are father and mother of deceased Surendra Singh in Claim Case No. 101/05 claimed compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- and the claimants-dependents of deceased Shivlal in Claim Case No. 102/05 claimed compensation of Rs.3,23,300/-. In all the three aforesaid claim cases, appellant Rameshchand was added as a party being the owner of the tractor.
4. The claimants pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The present appellant disputed his liability on the ground that he had already sold the vehicle in favour of one Santosh Singh. The Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The appellant being the owner of the tractor, is liable for payment of compensation and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in all the appeals has submitted that the present appellant Rameshchand had already sold the tractor prior to the accident, hence, he is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability of appellant to pay compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:
(i) 1980 ACJ 126 (Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai and others);
(ii) 1980 ACJ 233 (Panna Lal v. Shri Chand Mal and others);
(iii) MA No. 166/94 (Smt. Baijbai Jain and another v. Gaurabai and others, decided on 22.3.2005, Gwalior Bench);
(iv) 1999 ACJ 275 (Mathew Thankachan v. v.G. Manoharan and others);
(v) 2003 ACJ 12 (Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others);
(vi) 2001(11) MPWN 179 (Hamid Khan v. Smt. Guddibai).
6. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants in an the three appeals has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation of the present appellant. The tractor was of the ownership of the present appellant at the relevant time. However, in order to escape the liability, he prepared a forged papers. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the evidence on record of the case, proper compensation has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal although the respondents-claimants have not filed any cross-objection but this Court can enhance the compensation. In support of his contensions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:
(i) (2001)8 SCC 748 (Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and others)
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
