STATE Vs. ASHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.110D of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 shall also govern the disposal of other ten Misc. Appeals No. 256/84 (State of M.P. v. Smt. Premlatabai Wd/o Shivpratapsingh), 258/84 (State of M.P. v. Jeetendra Kumar Singh, Minor through guardian Rameshwar Singh) 259/84 (State of M.P. v. Shahjadi Wd/o Shahid Khan, 260/84 (State of M.P. v. Deceased Mulayamsingh through legal representative Smt. Satyawati Wd/o Mulayamsingh), 261/84 (State of M.P. and another v. Jeet Singh), 262/84 (State of M.P. v. Ramlathetsingh), 263/84 (State of M.P. and another v. Jaiveersingh), 264/84 (State of M.P. and another v. Babulal) and 265/84 (State of M.P. v. Lachha and another).

(2.) In appeals No. 255/84. 257/84, 258/84. 259/84 and 260/84, the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased constables, who died in the Motor Accident of Police vehicle No. MPP 2294, which was coming back from Alirajpur to Jhabua on 18-2-83, Remaining claimants are the injured persons, who received grievous and severe injuries in the said motor accident. The pleading in respect of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle are almost the same in all the claim petitions. About 30-32 constables, who were on duty, were coming back from Alirajpur to Jhabua. The police vehicle was being driven by one Rajaram Driver, who is also a constable and an employee of the State Govt. Admittedly, by the side of the driver 4-5 persons were sitting. It is alleged by the claimants in their petitions that Rajaram was driving the vehicle rashly, in a negligent manner with a high speed, as such the vehicle did not remain in his control, in between Ranapur and Jhabua the vehicle while passing through a culvert dashed with the culvert and turned topple, as a result of which 5 constables namely Shahidkhan, Sitaramsingh, Shivpratap Singh, Krishna Murari and Mulayamsingh died and six constables namely Bhaiyalal, Jitsingh, Ramlathatsingh, Jaiveersingh, Babulal and Lachha received fractures and severe injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased constables and injured constables claimed compensation by filing applications U/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Accident Claims Tribunal Jhabua from the State Govt. and the driver Rajaram.

(3.) In para 3 of some of the petitions clear averments were made with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. In reply to the allegations of rash and negligent driving there was a general denial in the written statement by the State of M.P. and its driver. In the written statement no specific plea or case was raised either by the driver or by the State of M.P. the manner in which the accident occurred and/or of mechanical break-down or failure of brakes or of inevitable accident. In paras 3 and in 4 of the written statement of the State of M.P. in claim petition No. 30/83 it was pleaded that about 1 k.m. ahead of Ranapur there was a turn and a narrow culvert, as a result of which the driver lost his control and the vehicle dashed against the culvert and thereafter toppled down. In para 4 it was alleged that the place where the accident occurred there was a narrow culvert and thereafter, because of the turn the vehicle did not remain in control and as such the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal framed Issues. No issue was raised with respect of inevitable accident in the circumstances of the case or because of sudden failure of brakes or mechanical break-down. The evidence was recorded by the Tribunal in two claim petitions i.e. in claim petition No. 20/83 (Bhaiyalal v. State of M.P.) and claim petition No. 54/83 (Deceased Mulayamsingh's LRS Smt. Satyawati and ors. v. State of M.P.). The cases were consolidated for the purpose of recording of evidence.