1. Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramchandra And Anr. vs Shivnarayan And Ors. on 4 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 ACJ 1661
Author: S Seth
Bench: S Seth
JUDGMENT
S.K. Seth, J.
1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 1202 of 2000, Sarita v. Shivnarayan, as the
same accident is the genesis of these two appeals. For the sake of convenience relevant facts in
brief may be noticed from the above appeal.
2. On 18.4.1999, Suresh and Sherulal accompanied by one Shivnarayan went to the agriculture
field of Bhanwar Singh, respondent No. 2, on a tractor. Shivnarayan, driver employed by
respondent No. 2, was on driving seat. He brought the tractor to a halt near border of the field
and before alighting he did not switch off the engine. He also did not took care to place any
stopper to prevent accidental movement of tractor. Tractor on account of slope started rolling in
reverse direction and fell into a nearby ditch. As a result Sheru and Suresh, who were sitting in
the tractor, were crushed to death. Their legal representatives lodged two separate claims before
the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora. Claim petitions were contested by
respondents and they denied their liability to pay compensation. It was also denied that
accident, if any, arose out of the use of motor vehicle in a public place. Appreciating evidence led
by parties, learned Claims Tribunal accepted the contentions of respondents and rejected claim
petitions.
3. I have heard the rival submissions at length and perused material available on record.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in law in
rejecting the claim petitions. He contended that the fatal accident in question arose out of use of
motor vehicle in a public place. Therefore, appellants are entitled to get compensation. It was
also contended that it is because of negligence of the driver of the tractor, respondent No. 1, the
accident occurred, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. It was also contended that the Tribunal took a parochial view of law in rejecting
claim petitions. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company,
supported the impugned awards and submitted that both the appeals being devoid of any
substance, merit dismissal and no interference is warranted with the impugned awards.

2. 5. Now the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether Tribunal was
justified in rejecting claim petitions? The question has to be resolved in the light of provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the law laid down in various authoritative pronouncements.
6. Clauses (28) and (34) of Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') defines
'motor vehicle' and 'public place' respectively. From the definition of 'motor vehicle' it is clear
that vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the
power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and 'public place'
means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have
a right of access, including any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by
a stage carriage.
7. There is no dispute that tractor is a motor vehicle covered by Clause (28) of Section 2 of the
Act. From the evidence available on record it is clear that without stopping mechanism and
taking adequate precaution, respondent No. 1 left the tractor engine in running condition near
the divider of agriculture field. This act on the part of respondent No. 1 was contrary to
provisions contained in Section 122 read with Section 126 of the Act. It is also clear from the
evidence that when the tractor started moving backward, deceased tried to stop the movement
and having failed in their attempt, they were also rolled over along with tractor into the nearby
ditch and were crushed to death. In the opinion of this Court, thus the accident arose out of the
use of a motor vehicle. Next question is whether accident occurred at a public place. It is now
well settled that a place accessible to public is a public place even if it is private property. In the
case in hand it is not established and proved that the accident did not occur at a public place.
Thus the inevitable conclusion is that on the fateful day accident occurred out of use of motor
vehicle at a public place due to negligence of the driver and, on that date, vehicle belonged to
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and was insured with respondent No. 4, therefore, the Tribunal was not
right in rejecting the claim petitions. The learned Counsel for insurance company, respondent
No. 4, submitted that there is variance between the pleadings and evidence. In this connection
he invited attention to contents of F.I.R. lodged by B.L. Sharma, PW 2, eyewitness of the
accident. According to him variance creates a doubt with regard to manner in which mishap
took place. In this regard it is suffice to say that a claim petition has to be decided on the basis of
evidence adduced before Tribunal and not on the basis of statement made in F.I.R. Even
otherwise, it is no case of respondents that deceased Sherulal was in-charge of tractor. It is
undisputed that respondent No. 1 being the driver, was in-charge of tractor and he ought to have
taken care and precaution as envisaged under Section 126 of the Act before he left the tractor
without stopping the mechanism or applying brakes. Had he taken adequate care and
precaution, the accident could have been averted. Even otherwise the respondents cannot
escape from their liability on the principle of 'strict liability' laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher

3. (1861-73) All ER 1 and accepted by the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. .
8. It was also contended that going by the averments made in the claim petitions, deceased
Sherulal and Suresh both were sitting in the tractor. The insurance policy issued by respondent
No. 4 covered risk of driver and no other person and on that count no liability can be fastened
on respondent No. 4. In this connection he placed reliance on decision rendered in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma . The submission though looks attractive on its face but on
a little probe, I find that same has no force in the facts and circumstances of the case. From the
evidence available on record, it is clear that at the time of accident the deceased were not sitting
in the tractor but they were in the field when they saw the tractor rolling backward, they tried to
stop it in vain and both rolled over along with tractor into a nearby ditch and met the tragic end.
Thus, they were clearly third party covered under the policy issued by the insurance company to
indemnify the assured against third party claim.
9. In view of foregoing discussion there is no doubt that the accident took place in a public place
out of use of motor vehicle and respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained.
10. Unfortunately, learned Claims Tribunal despite the evidence did not assess the amount of
compensation payable to appellants if they had not been non-suited on flimsy ground as
aforesaid. Since the Tribunal failed to determine the amount of compensation, therefore, it is
agreed that no useful purpose will now be served by remanding case to the Tribunal for
assessment of compensation. From the evidence it is clear that deceased were agriculture
labourers and were in the prime of their life. Deceased Suresh was only 18 years of age. When he
died he was unmarried and left behind his parents who are appellants in above appeal.
Similarly, deceased Sheru was only 25 years of age at the time of accident and left behind widow,
a minor daughter and parents, who are appellants in M.A. No. 1202 of 2000.
11. As pointed out hereinabove, accident took place in the year 1999 and keeping in view overall
factors, it can safely be held that deceased must have been earning as labourer Rs. 50 per day.
Obviously, one has to give margin of at least 5 days on account of holidays. Thus, the monthly
income of both the deceased would come to Rs. 1,250 (Rs. 50 x 25 = Rs. 1,250). Thus, the annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,000. After deducting usual 1/3rd amount which each of
the deceased must have been spending on himself, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000
in both appeals.
12. Looking to the age of the deceased and the claimants in these appeals, this Court is of the
view that multiplier of 13 and 17 respectively would be appropriate to determine the loss of

4. future dependency in each appeal. Thus, the future loss of appellants in M.A. No. 1201 of 2000
comes to Rs. 1,30,000. To this another sum of Rs. 20,000 can safely be added for funeral
expenses, loss of love and affection, loss to estate, etc. Thus, appellants in M.A. No. 1201 of 2000
are entitled to recover from respondents jointly and severally a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees
one lakh fifty thousand) together with costs throughout and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till it is actually paid and satisfied.
Similarly, in M.A. No. 1202 of 2000, future loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,70,000 (rupees
one lakh seventy thousand). To this another sum of Rs. 20,000 can safely be added towards
compensation under the head of funeral expenses, loss of love, affection and consortium, loss to
the estate, etc. Thus, appellants in M.A. No. 1202 of 2000 are entitled to recover from
respondents jointly and severally a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000 (rupees one lakh and ninety
thousand) with costs throughout and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date
of presentation of claim petition till it is actually paid and satisfied.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, both appeals are hereby allowed and impugned awards
passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora in M.V. Case Nos. 59 and 58 of
1999 are set aside. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified in each set of appeal.
14. It is directed that office shall transmit records in both appeals to the Claims Tribunal
forthwith. Upon deposit of the amount by the respondents in each appeal, the Claims Tribunal
shall after adjusting the amount, if any, paid as interim compensation, shall pass appropriate
orders for distribution of balance amount between the legal representatives keeping in view the
directions given by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans.
Corporation v. Susamma Thomas .
15. Let a copy of this order be retained in record of M.A. No. 1202 of 2000.