Sher Singh @ Mullu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ''the Act'') assailing the award dated 24.02.2006, passed by Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (for brevity, ''the Tribunal'') in Claim Case No. 05/2005, by which the application filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of the Act has been rejected.

The appellants/claimants had adverted in their claim application that on 09.02.2005 at around 7:30 pm in the evening, the husband of the appellant No.1 was driving motor cycle bearing registration number MP04 W3180 and his friend Tillu was the pillion rider. As soon as the motor cycle reached near village Devkhajuri, it met with an accident with a trolley which was standing on the middle of the road without indicating any sign or signal due to which motor cycle of appellant dashed into the trolley for no fault of his own and he died on the spot. Tillu suffered grievous injuries and the motor cycle also got damaged. It was also pleaded that the deceased Sudama was 27 years'' of age and he was accountant in a stone quarry and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Sudama used to spend Rs.4,000/- per month on his family, therefore, it was prayed that Rs. 9,39,000/- be awarded as compensation to the appellants for the death of Sudama.

The respondent appeared before learned Tribunal and denied the allegations of the claim application in their written statement and submitted that the trolley was not parked on the middle of the road. The deceased was under influence of alcohol. The trolley itself does not come within the purview of motor vehicle and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim application.

The learned Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the claim application on the ground that the standing trolley does not come within the ambit of motor vehicle. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellants preferred present appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider that while dealing with a case under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the only point that is to be considered is that the accident took place or not and nothing else is required to be enquired into. The learned Tribunal in Para 11 of its award has itself observed that trolley was not parked in the middle of the road and was parked in the left hand side of the road but it is not pleaded in the written statement. This has been said only in the evidence and as such evidence in absence of pleading cannot be looked into. The Tribunal has wrongly concluded that as the trolley was standing without attach to the tractor, therefore, it cannot be said to a motor vehicle.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

Tillu (AW-2) stated in his examination in chief that on 09.02.2005, he was going to Basoda by Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing registration No. MP04 W3180 which was being driven by Sudama and he was the pillion rider. His motor cycle was being driving slowly. When they reached near village Devkhajuri, their motor cycle met with an accident with a trolley which was parked on the middle of the road without indicating any sign and signal, therefore, he sustained grievous injuries and Sudama died on the spot. He denied the suggestion made by learned counsel for the respondent that they consumed the liquor and under the influence of alcohol, this accident had taken place. There is ample evidence available on record which shows that the trolley was parked on the middle of the road and the motor cycle dashed behind the trolley. Therefore, this fact cannot be disbelieved that the death of Sudama was happened due to the accident with the trolley which was parked on the middle of road without indicating any sign or signal.

Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines that "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for used upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer.

From the above definition, it is clear that trolley

which is standing without attaching to the tractor, cannot said to be a motor vehicle, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that standing trolley without attaching to the tractor does not come within the ambit of motor vehicle.

It was also pleaded that the deceased Sudama was 27 years old and he was working as accountant at stone quarry and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It means he was drawing annual salary of Rs. 60,000/-. which was beyond the upper limit of annual income of Rs. 40,000/- as provided by the Second Schedule of the Act.

Without further pondering upon the facts and adverting to its discussion, it is necessary to refer to the legal position to which Mr. Bansal gave reference which is crystallized by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934. In the said case, the Hon''ble Apex Court has dealt with the effect and impetus of Section 163-A, which are special provisions, as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis and the regular objections under Section 166 of the Act, which is as follows:-

Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyo nd the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. (See Regional Director, Employees'' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur Vs. Ramanuja Match Industries, [AIR 1985 SC 278 ].

We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala''s case, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC), has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."

In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the view that the claim petition of the claimants/appellants under Section 163-A of the Act is not tenable in law, as the deceased''s annual income was Rs.60,000/-, which was beyond the upper limit of the income of Rs.40,000/- as provided in the Second Schedule of the Act. Hence, the award impugned calls no interference.

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.