B.L.Yadav - (1.) INDRA Bahadur Verma, the owner of Scooter No. U M V 1454. who is alleged to have caused the death of Smt. Sanichari Devi on U-6-P8 and against whom the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its award dated 14-2-91 has awarded a sum of Rs. 15000/-, has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act).
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that under sections 52-A, 110 and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a claim petition was filed by Purshottam Das Nishad the husband and Smt. Rambhawati, the daughter of the deceased Smt. Sanichari Devi. An FIR was lodged in that connection by one Srikant, the grand son of the deceased alleging that on 11-6-88 at about 7.35 P M the deceased was going to market to make some purchases and at a distance of 100 metre from the house the appellant was going on Scooter and by that scooter the deceased met with an accident. In other words, the deceased being crushed down with Scooter became unconscious. Later on she was taken to hospital where she died In support of the claim petition three witnesses, namely, PW 1 Purshottam, husband of the deceased, Srikant, the informant, PW 2 and Rajesh Pd. PW 3 were examined, who supported the case set up in the claim petition. Relying upon their statements award has been given under the provisions of section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Old Act) where the liability is without proof of negligence or without fault. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant has denied the case set up in the claim petition to the effect that neither any occurrence has taken place nor the appellant had been on scooler on that date rather his scooter was parked in the house and the deceased did not meet with any accident, rather on account of some enmity the claim petition has been filed against the appellant. However, the defence version set up by the appellant has been disbelieved under the award. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the findings recorded by the claims tribunal was not based on appraisal of evidence on record inasmuch as the discrepancies in the statement of PW 1 Purshottam have been ignored. Learned counsel emphasised that PW 1 Purshottam could not say correctly as to on which part of the body Smt. Sanichari received injury. Similarly other irregularities were also pointed out in the statements of PWs 2 and 3. I have considered the irregularities pointed out in the statements of PWs. (the true copies of statement have been filed as Annexures 2. 3 and 4 to the staty application) but as a whole the same leads conclusion that the deceased met with accident with the scooter of the appellant and she died as a result of the accident in the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that before one could be punished, it must be proved that there was negligence and fault. In that connection he placed reliance on Minu B, Mehta v. Balkrishna Ram Chandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The case of Minu B Mehta v. Balkrishna Ram Chandra Nayan (Supra), was a case under section 110-A of the Act. The compensation was claimed under section 110-A and the claim was not allowed under section 92-A where it was obligatory to prove negligence. Whereas for a claim to be allowed under section 92-A (3) of the Act the fault or negligence is not required to be proved and as a result thereof a num of Rs. 15000/- has been awarded. Consequently the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not relevant.
(3.) RELIANCE was placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanram Singh, 1990 AC/ 321. That was also a case for compensation under sections 110-A. where the plea was negligence without proof. In that connection the initial burden was on the claimant and that was not discharged. In the instant case the award has been made and compensation has been awarded under section 92-A (3) of the Act. Hence that case is also of no assistance to the appellant. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Rambhawati was the married daughter and she was not entitled to claim compensation under section 92-A (3) of the Act. Suffice it to say that when the compensation is awarded it is not necessary that it must be paid to minor daughters only.;