THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1682 of 1998 Date: 12-8-2010 Between 1. Kautam Uppalaiah and 3 others … Appellants/Petitioners and 1. The Project Officer, Community Polytechnic Cell, Attached to Government Polytechnic, Warangal and 4 others … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1682 of 1998 Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Appeal by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 17-12-1997, in O.P.No.316 of 1994 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Warangal in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,62,000/- towards compensation to the parents, wife and younger brother of the deceased Kautam Buchi Ramulu, aged 24 years, who died while driving the tractor bearing No.APJ-2731 involved in the accident. 3. It is an unfortunate case where a young man of 24 years had died in an accident. When a claim was made by his dependants, who are the parents, wife and minor brother, a marginal sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation under ‘No fault liability.’ The respondents are the Government functionaries. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased was doing his Polytechnic in Tractor mechanic and driving course and he was being given training in driving in the institutions run by respondents 3 and 4. When the deceased-trainee was driving the vehicle outside the compound of the institute, he met with an accident because of incapability of the training manoeuvring, when it was actually being driven on a hillock slided back causing an accident, in which the deceased died. 5. The contention of the respondents is that only because of the negligent driving of the driver, who is the deceased, the accident took place resulting in his own death. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to pay any compensation and accordingly, having accepted the said contention, the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘No fault liability’. Hence the present appeal. 6. This is not the case where the vehicle was insured. On the other hand, the said vehicle is belonged to the training institution run by the respondents. Therefore, any accident causing an injury or death will be covered by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 since there is an option for the claimants to make a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the O.P., was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the negligence is to be established. 7. Respondent No.3 is a representative of the State of Andhra Pradesh, to watch scheming on progress of training being imparted under the supervision and administration of respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No.4 is the Government of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Human Resources and Development, New Delhi. Respondent No.5 is a part- time employee. 8. It is on record that on 02-3-1994 at about 11.30 a.m., while the deceased was driving the tractor bearing No.APJ-2731, involved in the accident. Respondent No.5, who is no other than the person imparting the training, was at the spot on the fateful day of the accident. 9. R.W.1, who was the Principal of the Government Polytechnic, Warangal had clarified in his evidence that the tractor training programme shall be imparted in the college ground only and that he did not produce any record to show that on his instructions only, the vehicle was taken outside the college to a mechanic shop for charging of battery by the driver-instructor. 10. Therefore, it is obvious that though the training is to be imparted only within the campus, the vehicle was taken outside the campus, not for the purpose of imparting training but for correcting the defect of the vehicle, that too without the instructions of R.W.1, who is the Principal of the Government Polytechnic. 11. Respondent No.5 was the instructor, who is to supervise the training while driving the vehicle and instruct the trainees. Obviously, he has no authorization to take the vehicle outside the college campus. When the vehicle was taken outside unauthorizedly, that too under the supervision of respondent No.5 instructor, a trainee ought not to have been permitted to drive the vehicle, that too under the precarious circumstances while the vehicle was being driven upwards. Because of the incapacity of the deceased in manoeuvring the vehicle, the said vehicle lost control, slided back with speed and caused the accident, resulting the death of the deceased. 12. From the above, though there is an obligation on the part of the respondents-institution and the instructor not to allow the vehicle to go outside the campus of the college, the vehicle was taken. Even if the same was taken out, the trainees ought not to have been permitted to handle the vehicle. Both these things had happened. Therefore, this is a clear violation of the conditions of imparting the training. When these conditions are violated, the same amounts to negligence. Merely because the vehicle was being driven by the deceased, negligence cannot be attributed to him. The actual negligence had started from the respondents 1 to 4 only and has been further perpetrated by respondent No.5. Therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed to the deceased. On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the same has to be attributed totally to the respondents only. 13. The next question would be – what would be the amount of compensation that would be reasonable ? 14. If we go by the Second Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the purpose of arriving at a rationale sum of compensation, the same would come to about Rs.1,80,000/-. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it appropriate to fix the same notionally as Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) in all and the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. 15. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1682 of 1998 12th August, 2010. (Ak)