Dy. Director of Agriculture (Eng.2) vs Ranchhodbhai Revlabhai Patel and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 30th March 1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Valsad (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 410 of 1984.

It is the case of the Appellant in brief that on 12th May 1984 Chhaganbhai-neighbour of the Appellant had dug a well and one drilling machine was to be lowered down in that well. So he had along gone down in that well. The well was in his Wada. The machine was to be installed to place the dynamite. Therefore, the truck with that machine had come near that well and the truck belonged to the Appellant. It is further the case that the well was deep by 18 hands and it had no water. Thereafter, the truck fell down in the well and as a result of the same, the original claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, he preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition, which ultimately came to be partly allowed. Hence, present appeal.

Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the Appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that it was a case of accident and the driver was not at all negligent; that the original claimant had no reason to go inside the well and by coming inside the well had shown gross negligence, which has not been considered by the Tribunal. In view of above submissions, it is prayed to allow the appeal.

Having considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, averments made in the appeal and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the relevant documents and evidence on record has rightly allowed the claim petition in part. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal on the evidence available on record has held that the compressor machine was fitted in the truck and as that machine was started, the truck moved back and fell into the well. Thus, the truck was not driven at the relevant point of time and was standing at a distance of about 10 feet from the well. Further, it is required to be noted that in view of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act when an accident occurs and bodily injury is caused to a third party out of the use of a motor vehicle, such person is required to be compensated in case of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The Tribunal has also rightly held that since the truck driver did not take proper precaution in starting compressor machine, the truck moved backwards and thus, he was held negligent. In that view of the matter, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. Even otherwise also, the claim is of only Rs. 58,000/-. Therefore also, it will not be appropriate for this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

I view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. I adopt the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.