Sunder Lal vs Om Singh and Others

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Rati Ram deceased was travelling in a truck owned and driven by the Appellant. The truck was driven at a very high speed. It turned turtle. Rati Ram received fatal injuries and died. The three sons of Rati Ram, aged 11, 9 and 7 filed an application u/s 110-A of the Act for the award of compensation. The Appellant denied that he drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the Appellant drove the truck rashly and negligently and a sum of Rs. 3,000 was awarded as compensation to each of the three claimants.

In this appeal, the first submission of the learned Counsel was that no rashness or negligence was proved against the Appellant. There is no force in the submission. The original plea in the written statement was one of bare denial of rashness or negligence. He did not put forward any version of his own in the written statement. Subsequently, at the trial it was suggested to the first two witnesses examined by the claimants that the accident took place when the Appellant swerved the vehicle in order to avoid collision with a truck or a bullock cart which was coming in the opposite direction. The Appellant however, did not stick to this suggestion. One of the later witnesses examined by the claimants, obviously to help the Appellant, stated that the Appellant swerved the vehicle in order to avoid running over some cattle and as a consequence of that the vehicle turned turtle. The Appellant immediately adopted this version when he came to give evidence on his own behalf. It is clear that the Appellant never had a consistent version of his own. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimants shows that the Appellant was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. According to the estimate of one of the witnesses, he was driving the vehicle at a speed of 80 kms. per hour. The evidence also shows that the Appellant lost control of the vehicle because of the high speed at which he was trying to drive the vehicle. The high speed at which the vehicle was being driven coupled with circumstance that there is no acceptable explanation whatsoever from the Appellant as to why the vehicle turned turtle, lead to the clear inference that the Appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. There is, there fore, no force in the submission of the learned Counsel.

The second submission of the learned Counsel was that Rati Ram had to go into the vehicle without the consent and knowledge of the Appellant. There is no force in this submission either. All that the witnesses stated was that Rati Ram was not known to the Appellant previously and that the Appellant did not charge any fare from him. It does not follow therefrom that Rati Ram travelled in the vehicle without the knowledge or consent of the Appellant.

The last submission of the learned Counsel was that the amount awarded is excessive. In my view far from being excessive the amount awarded is extremely meagre. There is, however, no appeal by the claimants. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.