Rati Devi and Others vs Mantu Sahu and Another

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 19.3.1991, the Sarhul festival day a truck (BRS 7008) as standing at village Beragani, District Ranchi and villagers were boarding thereon to take part in the procession. While Mahabir Pahan @ Mahabir Ram Munda, a 45 years old employee of the Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi was trying to board on the said truck, it moved and he fell down and came under the left rear wheel thereof. He sustained injury and succumbed thereto at the spot.

The Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 10.4.1995 passed in Compensation Case No. 59 of 1991 filed by the dependents of the deceased under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that there was no question of rash and negligent driving in the facts and circumstances of me case and that the deceased fell down in the rear side of the truck and so there was no occasion for the driver to fore see or see the deceased being fallen down and as such the claimants were not entitled to get compensation under the Act, besides the interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-which was earlier granted by order dated 12.11.1992. The claim case was dismissed.

Negligence is omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is not a question of evidence rather is an inference to be drawn from proved fact''s.

It was the duty of the claimants to connect the act or omission on the part of the driver of the vehicle with the accident to show that he was negligent.

In the present case, the admitted facts are that the deceased was Pahan of Sarhul Puja Sammitti and the vehicle was arranged for the procession. It was stated by DW 1 in his examination-in-chief that the deceased had consumed excessive liquorat the relevant time and was under in toxication.In his cross-examination too, this fact was established that on account of intoxication, the deceased was not in a position to stand and inspite of the protest, he tried to get in the truck, while the truck was moving slowly and in that attempt fell down and crushed by the left rear wheel of the truck.

It was, therefore, negligent act of the deceased which was responsible for the accident in question. The present inevitable accident was an accident which could not have been avoided by the driver of the vehicle by the use of the kind and degree of care necessary to the exigency and in the circumstances he was placed.

In the premises of the aforesaid facts in my view, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the compensation case filed by the dependents of the deceased under the Act. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.