Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat, Mehngrowal vs Auditya Ram And Anr. on 28 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988P&H145, AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 145, (1988) 2 CIVLJ 406, (1988) 1 TAC 380, (1987) 92 PUN LR 656
JUDGMENT
1. On 31-7-1982 at about 10 P.M. Mohan Sharma aged about 23 years and Wazir Singh were returning to Hoshiarpur on their bicycles after completing their day's work as electrician in the milk plant, where they were employed at monthly salary of Rs. 675/- . On the way near village Ajawol, tractor with trolly attached bearing registration No. 7495 belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Mehngrowal, driven by Guran Dass came from the opposite direction. It first hit Wazir Singh who fell down on the Kacha side of the road and then bit Mohan Sharma and dragged him to some distance. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident in the chest and the head, Mohan Sharma died. His father and two minor sisters filed application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). The driver and the owner of the tractor denied the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rashness or negligence or both of Guran Dass respondent? OPA
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from which of the respondents? OPA
3. If issues No. 1 is proved, whether respondent No. 1 was not driving the tractor. at the time of the accident during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2? OPR On the evidence led in the case, the Tribunal by a well considered order dt. 27th April, 1983 decided all issues in favour of the claimants and against the driver and owner of the tractor, and awarded Rs. 30,000/- compensation to the father of the deceased. This is appeal by the Gram Panchayat, owner of the tractor, in which claimants have filed cross-objections.
2. After considering the matter, 1 am of the view that it is fully established from the statement of Wazir Singh, who is eye-witness of the occurrence that the appellant's tractor was involved in the accident and the story set up by the Gram Panchayat and its driver is completely an afterthought. In the first information report, which was got recorded at midnight the number of the tractor and the name of the driver are mentioned. In view of the above, 1 uphold the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1.
3. Finding on issue No. 3 recorded by the Tribunal also deserves to be upheld. So for as the victims are concerned, it did not matter whether the driver of the tractor trolly exceeded his authority in taking the tractor beyond a certain limit. All the same if he committed accident, the Gram Panchayat by way of vicarious liability was responsible for the same. See in this behalf the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 91 Pun LR 665: (AIR 1987 SC 1184). There, the Insurance Company took the stand that although the truck was insured but the driver of the truck had allowed cleaner to drive and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable. This argument was declined and the Insurance Company was held liable to compensate the insured even if it was driven at a particular moment by an unauthorised person. The present case is better on facts because here the licensed driver was employed by the Gram Panchayat for driving the tractor.
4. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has found that the deceased was spending Rs. 200/- on his-father and Rs. 100/- on each of his two minor sisters. Since sisters were not entitled to claim compensation in law, to father Rs. 30,000/- were awarded by the Tribunal.
5. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbbai, (1987) 3 SCC 234: (AIR 1987 SC 1690), the highest Court of the land has held that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which has been substantially modified by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of the vehicles accidents.
6. In view of the aforesaid dictum, minor sisters were also entitled to compensation and the Tribunal was in error in not granting the compensation to them. Accordingly, I am of the view that the father and the minor sisters of the deceased were entitled to compensation.
7. Keeping in view the status of the family, I am of the view it will meet the ends of justice if Rs. 40,000/- are allowed to the claimants. Rs. 30,000/- would go to the father with a direction to maintain and bring up the daughters till their marriage and Rs. 5,000/- each to the minor daughters, along with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment, which amount would be deposited in their name in a special FDR by the Tribunal for a period till the time they attain majority, so that the amount can be used at the time of their marriage.
8. For the reasons recorded-above, the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat is dismissed with costs and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed with costs and it is ordered that Rs. 30,000/- would be paid to Aditya Ram claimant along with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the application till payment and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with 12 per cent per annum interest would be deposited half and half in special FDR in the name of each minor daughter as indicated above.
9. Order accordingly.