DURGESH BAI AND OTHERS Vs. TIKKULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act') claimants/appellants have called in question the defensibility of the award dated 1-1-1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Balaghat (in short, the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim case put forth by the petitioner which was the subject matter of Claim Case No.96 of 1996.

(2.) The facts, in essence, that had been set forth before the Tribunal are that the deceased Kishore, the husband of the appellant No.1 and father of appellants No. 2 to 4, was engaged by Tikku Lal, the respondent herein for driving the tractor bearing registration No.MIK-B 263 and was paid Rs. 1,300.00 per month towards salary and sustaining the family. It was submitted by the claimants that the condition of the tractor was not acceptable and despite being told by the deceased Kishore that it was not safe to drive the tractor, the owner/respondent maintained a golden silence and did not do anything to get the vehicle repaired. On the date of incident i.e. 9-2-1992, when the driver, Kishore was going with certain labourers from Piparia to Balaghat at about 12 in the noon, there was failure of the brake of the vehicle, as a consequence of which, it turned turtle and fell on a ditch. The driver and other labourers sustained injuries and the deceased, Kishore succumbed to the same immediately.

(3.) It was also asserted in the claim petition that the deceased was getting Rs. 12,000.00 from agricultural income, Rs. 5,000.00by repairing the vehicles items and Rs. 1,300.00per month from driving. In toto, he was getting Rs. 87,600.00per year. At the time of accident, as pleaded the deceased was 30 years of age. On various heads, a claim for a sum of Rs. 2,64,000.00 was put forth by the claimant.