ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. By this common judgment following Misc. Appeals are being finally heard and decided. A tabular information has been arranged for the purpose of understanding the nature of these appeals, the cause of action and the claims preferred and the amounts awarded to the claimants. In all these appeals the State is assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and awards passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kukshi in 18 claim cases resulting into Misc. Appeals as mentioned below :–
MA No. Title Death/Injury Amount
349/93 State v. Somlia Death Rs. 50000/-
350/93 State v. Tersingh Inj. Rs. 3000/-
351/93 State v. Kekdia Death Rs. 50000/-
352/93 State v. Nahar Singh Death Rs. 50000/-
354/93 State v. Mehtabsingh Inj. Rs. 3000/-
355/93 State v. Laxman Inj. Rs. 4000/-
356/93 State v. Madhosingh Inj. Rs. 15000/-
357/93 State v. Veersingh Inj. Rs. 10300/-
358/93 State v. Raju Inj. Rs. 5000/-
359/93 State v. Bhurla Death Rs. 50000/-
360/93 State v. Gulabsingh Inj. Rs. 3000/-
361/93 State v. Kalu Death Rs. 50000/-
362/93 State v. Lalu Death Rs. 50000/-
363/93 State v. Thavarsingh Death Rs. 50000/-
364/93 State v. Bhuwansingh Death Rs. 50000/-
333/94 State v. Premsingh Inj. Rs. 95000/-
197/97 State v. Ramsingh Inj. Rs. 14000/-
201/97 State v. Kamalsingh Inj. Rs. 46000/-
2. Shri Dandwate appeared for Insurance Co. Shri v. Gangwal appeared for the claimants and Shri V.R. Purohit appeared for tractor driver Bhura and owner Badrilal.
3. The brief facts are that on 3-3-1989 at about 12.30 PM or so one State Minister of the State of M.P. holding port-folio of Aadim Jati Kalyan Vibhag was to visit Dahi in Kukshi Tehsil of Dhar District. The programme of said Minister was circulated amongst concerned government officers and one copy of that programme was received by Block Development Officer of Dahi. He sent a letter in that context to T.I. of Police Station Dahi. As per case of the claimants as well as witnesses. Badrilal and Bhura were present in village Dahi with Tractor bearing No. CII- 9587 and trolley No. CII-9588. As per evidence given by witnesses Badrilal and Bhura when the said Tractor and trolley came at village Dahi, they were asked by Police-constable to go to Dahi Police-Station as they were called there by the T.I. of the said Police Station. They went there accordingly and were asked to go to Primary School of Arada and were asked to pick-up the pupils of the said Primary School and carry them through the said tractor and trolley to village Dahi where they were to attend the programme which was to be presided over by the said State Minister of the State of M.P. Both witnesses Badrilal and Bhura contacted one teacher named Manohar Goyal who happens to be the non-applicant for these matters. Manohar Goyal told them that the said pupils be taken to village Dahi for attending the programme which was to be presided over by the said State Minister of the State of M.P. In view of that, both Badrilal and Bhura took the pupils and allowed them to sit in the trolley and some portion of the tractor and to travel towards village Dahi. Unfortunately, the said tractor and trolley fell in a ditch causing an accident in which 8 pupils succumbed to death and 10 pupils suffered various types of injuries. The injured pupils filed the claims in M.A.C.T. through their guardians and the heirs of deceased pupils filed their claims in M.A.C.T.
4. The State of M.P. did not put up the written statement at all. The B.D.O. Shri N.L. Tandali submitted his written statement and disowned to have written any communication to T.I. of Dahi Police Station. He denied that he was in any way concerned with said act of carrying said pupils through said vehicle from Primary School Arada to Village Dahi. He disowned any connection with the said accident, accidental injuries and deaths. T.I. Shri R.A. Singh also did not file any written statement. Thus, the averments made in the claim petitions were not denied by the State of M.P. or the T.I. Shri Singh. Only the BDO Shri Tandali disowned any concern whatsoever with the said episode and resultant liability to pay the compensation.
5. The claimants examined themselves for the purpose of proving the factum of accident and things which took place prior to it. They attempted to prove that at the instance of T.I.-Shri Singh of P.S., Dahi, witnesses Badrilal and Bhura went with the said tractor and trolley to Primary School Arada and from there with the help of teacher Manohar Goyal, pupils were carried to village Dahi through the said tractor and trolley.
6. National Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Co. for convenience) disowned its liability to pay the compensation by contending that the said tractor and trolley were not insured with them for the purpose of carrying the passengers on gratis or on payment of charges. It disowned the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. Shri R.C. Jain was examined on behalf of the Insurance Co. for proving the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy involved.
7. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record in the pleadings concluded that it was proved by the claimants that on behalf of the State of M.P., the B.D.O. Shri Tandali and TI. Shri Singh had requisitioned the said tractor and trolley for the purpose of transporting the pupils of Primary School Arada from that village to Village Dahi to attend the said meeting presided over by the State Minister of the State of M.P. He held that the State of M.P. was vicariously liable for the acts of its servants viz. the B.D.O. Shri Tandali and the TI. Shri R.A. Singh of P.S. Dahi. In view of such findings he awarded compensations by passing the awards which are being assailed by these appeals.
8. Mrs. Meena Chafekar vehemently submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that on instructions or orders of the State of M.P. the said tractor and trolley were requisitioned and were further used for the purpose of carrying the pupils from the said Primary School, Arada to village Dahi. She submitted that in view of the evidence on record it was an error on the part of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to pass the awards in favour of the claimants and against the State of M.P. She further submitted that there was no order passed by the State of M.P. or its officer(s) for the purpose of carrying the pupils of said Primary School from Village Arada to village Dahi for attending the function. She prayed that these appeals be allowed and the awards which are being impugned by the appeals be set-aside.
9. Shri Dandwate vehemently submitted that the said vehicle tractor and the trolley were to be used only for the agricultural purpose and for that only it were insured. When the said vehicle and the trolley was used by the owner and driver for non-insured purposes, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable and cannot be asked to pay the compensation to the claimants.
10. Shri Purohit submitted that the said vehicle got out of control unfortunately and, therefore, driver Badrilal lost his control over it and, therefore, said accident took place. According to him neither Badrilal nor Bhura can be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
11. Shri V Gangwal vehemently submitted that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation either from the State of MP or from Badrilal and Bhura, owner and driver of the said tractor and trolley or from the Insurance Co. He justified the award which has been assailed by these appeals and submitted that the appeals be dismissed.
12. Learned Member of the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence and discussing on its merits and demerits, concluded that it has been proved that the said driver Badrilal and owner Bhura were present in village Arada on the day of accident and at the relevant time before the said tractor and trolley proceeded from village Arada to village Dahi for the said function. He held that there was no reason for both Badrilal and Bhura to give false evidence against T.I. Shri R.N. Singh and to concoct a false story. He also held that the averments made by teacher Manohar Goyal in his written-statement supported the evidence of Badrilal and Bhura. The Member further held that the evidence of the pupils-claimants proved the factum of the said accident and acts committed by T.I. Shri Singh. He further held that evidence of P.W. 3 Block Development Officer Bhola S/o Chhogalal was proving that a letter was sent by the then BDO Shri Tandali to T.I. of Police-Station Dahi Shri Singh for the purpose of securing the presence of audience of the said meeting and function. By connecting these pieces of evidence the learned Member concluded that the said pupils were carried through said tractor and trolley to village Dahi for the said function of State Minister of State of M.P. and on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver Badrilal, said accident took place. Learned Member of the Tribunal held Shri Tandali, the then B.D.O., Shri R.A. Singh, the then T.I. of Police-Station, Dahi and teacher Manohar Goyal liable for the said accident and accidental injuries as well as accidental deaths. He also held that State of M.P. vicariously liable for the acts of T.I. Shri R.A. Singh, the then B.D.O. Shri Tandali and Shri Manohar Goyal.
13. As these findings of the learned M.A.C.T. have been challenged, it has become necessary for this court to examine in limited way whether the conclusions drawn by the learned M.A.C.T. are borne out by the evidence on record and they are correct, proper and legal. It has also become necessary to examine whether those findings are perverse or correct. It has also become necessary to examine whether the learned M.A.C.T. has passed these awards by remaining in four corners of the jurisdiction which vested in it.
14. As these findings are challenged by the State of M.P. in the appeals, it has become for this court to examine whether the findings recorded by the learned M.A.C.T. are borne out by evidence on record and the way in which the evidence has been appreciated is correct, proper and legal.
15. It is a matter of experience that the white-washing starts after happening of the incident which casts a liability on the State. The officers start throwing out the burden on others. The officers start disowning the connection with the incident which took place and the things taking place prior to it. As a typical habit of bureaucracy, though letters may not be disclosing clearly a direction to carry the pupils through said tractor- trolly from Arada to Dahi, the evidence of driver Badrilal and owner Bhura gives a clinching finish to the evidence of the claimants pupils. Very cautiously teacher Manohar Goyal did not enter into witness-box. Had he entered into the witness-box he would has found very difficult to face the barrage of questions asked to him. Apart from that, an adverse inference has been to be drawn against him for non-entering the witness-box.
16. If this was not a direction given by B.D.O. Shri Tandali and T.I. Shri R.A. Singh, what was the reason for driver Badrilal and owner Bhura of the said tractor-trolly to go to said Primary School, Arada and take pupils in said tractor-trolly and to carry them from village Arada to village Dahi ? It is pertinent to note here that the evidence of the pupils-claimants prove that they were told that they were not to pay anything as hire-charges for travelling from village Arada to village Dahi. Unless some body had asked them to go to said Primary School, driver Badrilal and Bhura would not have gone there and unless permitted by the teachers of the said school, they would not have been able to carry those pupils from Arada to Dahi in the said tractor-trolly. In fact, those pupils would not have been permitted to travel in such a fashion from school to said place of function. It is to be noted that witnesses may tell lie but the circumstances generally do not and here these circumstances render a strong corroboration to the occular evidence of the witnesses examined.
17. The conclusions which have been drawn by the Member, M.A.C.T. are thus, borne out by evidence on record. The way in which evidence has been appreciated is also correct, proper and legal. Therefore, this court finds no difficulty in confirming these conclusions.
18. The tractor was not to be used for carrying those pupils in view of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has been so used by said driver Badrilal and owner. As evidence on record proves they were asked to transport them by the T.I. of Police-Station Dahi, Shri Singh. The evidence further proves that T.I. Shri R.A. Singh did so at the instance of the then B.D.O. Shri Tandali, Shri Tandali might have acted in view of oral instructions of some responsible officer of the State of M.P. but, unfortunately, was not able to prove that way. The State of M.P. cannot shirk out its responsibility in view of the evidence on record and its act of not submitting a written-statement and not denying the averments made by the claimants. Therefore, State of M.P. is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Driver Badrilal and owner Bhura rightly have been exonerated from liability of paying compensation to the claimants as the M.A.C.T. has exonerated the Insurance Co. This court thus confirms the Awards.
19. The word of caution needs to be put in letters for restricting, curbing the growing tendency of travelling through trollies connected with the tractors. Poor villagers may have been doing it on account of their poverty, compulsion and urgency but this act is totally unsafe and invites the danger of accidents, resultant injuries and deaths. Therefore, as early as possible the people should forget this habit of travelling by trollies connected with tractors. A tendency is also seen to gather the audience for public meetings and functions. The audience is generally transported through trucks and trollies. That is also not proper. That is dangerous to the public safety and public discipline also. The concerned persons should try to forget this, as early as possible. Government should put ban on it and should implement it seriously.
20. Thus, the appeals are dismissed with cost.