STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RASIKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Being aggrieved with the award dated 27-2-1998 passed in Claim Case No. 13/93 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjir, the State has filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under : "Respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,50,000.00 on account of death of deceased Sitaram in the motor accident which took place on 8-5-1993. They pleaded that on 8-5-1993, at about 11.00 p.m., deceased Sitaram was coming on his motor cycle from Champa to village Thathari. A road-roller bearing registration No. PW-9844 was parked in the middle of the road in village Kamrid. No parking indications were given. The roller was kept there because road construction works of contractor (respondent No.5) was going on. Since no indications were given and the roller was kept in the middle of the road, the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle, dashed his motor cycle against the roller and died on the spot. They contended that the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants as the accident occurred on account of negligent act of the driver of the roller who kept the roller on the road in the above condition.The contractor/ respondent No. 5 filed his written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. He pleaded that the roller was kept on the side of the road and red lights were on, even coaltar drums were kept by the side of the roller in abundant as caution. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the roller. He further pleaded that the road- roller belongs to Public Works Department. The contractors use to take the roller for completion of their contract on rent on certain agreement. Therefore, the liability, if any, would be on the Government being the owner of the road-roller.Respondent No. 6/driver also filed his written statement and denied the contentions of the claimants.Appellant/State also filed its written statement and contended that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. The roller was kept in stationary condition with all possible indications. It was also pleaded that the roller was taken on agreement by the contractor, therefore, the liability, if any, would go on the contractor and not on the State being the owner of road-roller.Claimants examined Rasika Devi (AW-1), Jeevan (AW-2) & Hemant Singh (AW-3) in support of their claim petition, whereas, the non-claimants examined Vishnu Sharma (NAW- 1) & Dinesh Chandra Mahiwal (NAW-2) in rebuttal.The Tribunal held that the accident occured on account of negligence of the driver of the roller who parked it in such a manner that the deceased could not avoid the accident and his motorcycle dashed against the roller and the owner of the roller i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) was liable to pay compensation.The Tribunal assessed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000.00 per month. By deducting ⅓rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs. 2,000.00 per month and Rs. 24,000.00 per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,60,000.00. By awarding Rs. 10,000.00 under other heads, a total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,70,000.00 which the Tribunal awarded to respondents 1 to 4 /claimants for the death of deceased Sitaram in the motor accident which took place on 8-5-1993. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization.State has challenged the award on various grounds and has prayed for setting-aside the award, whereas, respondents 1 to 4/ claimants have filed their cross-objection dated 22-9-1998 and have prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation in terms of the prayer made their Claim Petition.

(3.) Mr. V. V. S. Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, has mainly argued that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased; the road- roller was kept in stationary condition by the side of the road leaving sufficient space to pass any vehicle, therefore, respondents 1 to 4/ claimants were not entitled to receive any claim for the death of the deceased in the said accident. He also argued that the roller was in control and command of the contractor at the time of the accident under the agreement, therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, was on the contractor and not on the State.