State of M.P. and Another vs Sangphoh and Others

G.C. Gupta, J.—This appeal filed u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is by the owners of the vehicle and is directed against the award dated 17-12-81 passed by Shri V.D. Bajpai, Claims Tribunal, Seoni in motor claim case No. 1/81.

By the impugned award the tribunal has granted compensation amounting to Rs. 12000/- plus Rs. 1000/- as expenses to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their application before the Claims Tribunal submitted that respondent No. 3 Gajendrasingh while driving government jeep No. CPZ 3674 on 4-11-80 at about 7-00 p.m. in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Tejing Chokla, their son, aged about 5 years and killed him. They therefore claim compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- as pecuniary loss together with Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical pain. They also claimed a sum of Rs. 900/- for performing funeral rites etc. Respondent No. 3 in his written statement admitted the accident but denied that it happened because of his rash and negligent driving. According to him the place of accident was crowded road side near the bus stand and he was driving his jeep at a very slow speed. The present appellants also denied their liability to pay compensation as there was no rash and negligent driving. The learned tribunal held that Tejing Chokla died in an accident with the jeep No. CPZ 3674 owned by present appellants and driven by respondent No. 3 on 4-11-80. He also held that the said jeep was driving in a rash and negligent manner. He calculated the liability of the appellants at Rs. 1,2000/- only and awarded the same. It is this award which is challenged in this appeal.

The only point for consideration of this court is whether Tejing Chokla died because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. ? A perusal of the impugned award would indicate that it is against all applicants including respondent No. 3 and hence all of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount. Since the award has not been challenged by the respondent No. 3 it must be held to become final. Since the findings regarding rash and negligent driving relate to respondent No. 3 it must be held that he accepted the same without filing an appeal. Gajendrasingh has been held to be a dishonest person lacking honesty. It may be that the present appellants in spite of Gajendrasingh''s accepting the award are entitled to challenge the award and hence it may be examined that the said finding is in any way incorrect. Sanjpoh (AW 1) is an eyewitness having witnessed the accident from a distance of 4-5 feet. He has denied that Tejing Chokla had fallen in the middle of the road or that he was crossing the road. According to him there was a collision between the jeep and Tejing Chokla in which Tejing Chokla has received injury on his head and leg. The learned judge has examined his evidence in detail and has found no reasons to disbelieve the same. As against this there was evidence of Gajendrasingh (NW 1) who has been found to be a dishonest person. According to him he blew the horn. He further stated that the boy was crossing the road and came in the middle of the road and dashed against the jeep. According to him he applied brakes to avoid the accident and yet the boy dashed against the front side of the mud-guard. If the driver had stopped the jeep as he claimed and did not dashed against the boy and it was the boy who dashed against the mud-guard, the boy would never have died. The fact that the boy died is sufficient to hold that he must have received jerk because of the running vehicle. The fact that the jeep was driven in a crowded locality, dashed against the boy and killed him is sufficient to indicate that it was not being driven as cautiously as expected. Under the circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3.

So far as the amount of compensation is concerned the learned tribunal had been rather charitable in favour of the appellants. Life of a boy could not be purchased for Rs. 12,000/-. There is no scope for interference with the award on this account.

The appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.