JUDGMENT
P.V. Nirgudkar, J.
1. This judgment would dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objections arriving out of judgment, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 10/82, by Ex-Officio Member of the Tribunal, Nanded, in an application filed before him under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation for Rs. 1,00,000/-for the death of Kondabai Kamble, who died as a result of injury she suffered and sustained in Motor Accident,
2. Kondabai Kamble, the victim, was a Sweeper working in Nanded Municipal Council and at about 10.30 a.m. on 5th December, 1981, she was returning home perhaps not knowing that it was her last journey towards the house. Her house is situated in New Mondha, which is beyond the Railway Station and there is a foot-path at about 4 to 5 ft. in width, leading to that house. When she was on the foot-path, a vehicle dashed against her, so severe was the impact and so forcible was the dash of the tractor that because of the injuries she sustained, she did not live for a long time.
3. After her death, the present application for compensation has been filed against the Zilla Parishad, as the vehicle belonged to the Zilla Parishad and it is said that the driver was in the employment of Zilla Parishad.
4. The defence of the Zilla Parishad was that the driver of the tractor bearing VIH.A. 1570 was not driving the tractor at the relevant time and the person driving that tractor was not in the employment of the Zilla Parishad. There is discrepancy of the number of the tractor and the Zilla Parishad wanted to say that because of the mistake, it should not be made liable to pay the compensation.
5. The Ex-Officio Member of the Tribunal rejected the contentions holding Zilla Parishad liable for compensation awarded Rs. 41,000/- as. compensation to the petitioners, who are legal representatives of deceased Kondabai Kamble. In reaching to that conclusion, the learned Member of the Tribunal recorded the finding that the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent in driving the tractor and so the liability of Zilla Parishad to pay the compensation has been clearly established.
6. Aggrieved by the order of compensation, Zilla Parishad had filed this appeal and dissatisfying with the order of less compensation awarded, the original petitioners have filed cross- objections. The grievance made by the original petitioners is that they should have been awarded at least Rs. 51,000/- by way of compensation.
7. The record clearly shows that the tractor left the road and came on the foot-path. This is nothing but a clear indication of rashness and negligence. Secondly, when the vehicle leaves the normal route and comes on the foot-path, it is also apparent that the vehicle was not under the proper control of the driver because of his rash driving. Thirdly, in the instant case, the driver was coming out of the lane to the main road and he was expected to be very careful and cautious to see the traffic on the main road. This care and caution expected of him was not observed by him, on the contrary, he crossed the foot-path and dashed the lady. So the driver of the tractor, whosoever he may be, is surely and certainly guilty of rashness and negligence.
8. Now, the learned Member of the Tribunal has held that Sk. Wazu was driving the tractor. His name is there is the petition. He is in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. On going through the evidence, we do not find any good reason to take a different view. We may hasten to add that whosoever may be the driver, as he is in the employment of Zilla Parishad and as he is discharging the duties and the accident took place in the course of the employment, Zilla Parishad is liable to pay the compensation.
9. Now a word about compensation. The learned Ex-Officio Member of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 41,000/- by way of compensation. We have no doubt in our mind that this amount of compensation is rather inadequate. The lady died at the age of 35. She was getting little more than Rs. 400/- per month. She was expected to retire at least at the age of 55 or 58. At the present, when the prices are increasing, even the sum of Rs. 400/- can hardly be sufficient to put the heart and soul together. There are also expenses for clothing, medicine, pilgrimage, etc. So on considered and careful examination, we are of the firm conviction that the cross-objections should be allowed and an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with interest be granted. Hence order.
ORDER
First Appeal No. 59/84, filed by Zilla Parishad, Nanded, against the order in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 10/82 is dismissed with costs. The Cross-objections are allowed and the Zilla Parishad is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 10,000/-by way of compensation to the petitioners with costs. The Zilla Parishad should pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent on that additional amount from the date of the application.