IMPORTANT POINT
Ambit, scope and applicability of section 140, M.V. Act, 1988 discussed.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 140 – It is an erroneous view that a claim for compensation u/s 140 can succeed only if it is raised at the initial stage of the proceedings – It is equally erroneous to hold that the claim must fail if the accident had taken place by using the car without the consent or knowledge of its owner – All that is required is an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle(s) leading to the death or permanent disablement of any person – Sub-section (5) makes it further clear that the liability u/s 140 is independent of the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force. (Para 12)
        (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 141(1) – Compensation u/s 140 is independent of any claim of compensation based on the principle of fault under any other provision of the Act or under any other law – I would however be subject to any claim of compensation under section 163A of the Act. (Para 13)
        (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140, 146 and 147 – Liability arising from section 140 would almost invariably be passed on to the insurer by virtue of s. 146 and 147. (Para 15)
        (d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 140 – Despite no claim being made u/s 140 at the beginning of the proceedings or no direction being issued due to oversight, the ‘no fault compensation’ has to be granted even belatedly. (Para 17)
       Facts of the case:
        1. Basavaraj driver of a privately owned car took out the car for a joyride with five persons, who were his neighbours and met with a fatal accident in which Basavaraj and four other occupants of the car died. The fifth passenger sustained injuries but escaped death.
        2. Parents of one of the deceased, Nagaraj, are the appellants herein.
        3. Claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, Basavaraj was dismised.
        4. The heirs of the four occupants of the car, dying in the accident (including the present appellants) and the fifth passenger suffering injuries in the accident sought compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Their claims were also rejected.
        5. The appeal before the High Court was also dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
        The appellant (as well as the other 3 claimants) were fully entitled to no fault compensation under section 140 of the Act.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J. —

1. A certain Basavaraj was the driver of a privately owned car. In the night of October 28, 1992 he took out the car for a joyride and along with five persons, who were his neighbours, proceeded for the nearby Anjaneya temple for offering pooja. On way to the temple the car met with a fatal accident in which Basavaraj and four other occupants of the car died; the fifth passenger sustained injuries but escaped death. One of the persons dying in that motor accident was Nagaraj, whose parents are the appellants before this Court.

2. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, Basavaraj filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. They got nothing. The Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act found and held that the accident did not take place in course of employment and rejected the claim for compensation.

3. The heirs of the four occupants of the car, dying in the accident (including the present appellants) and the fifth passenger suffering injuries in the accident sought compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Their claims proved to be equally barren.

4. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court where they were equally unsuccessful. They are now in appeal before this Court by special leave.

5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a very limited issue. He submitted that in any event the appellants were entitled to the ‘no fault compensation’ as provided under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they were denied even that by the Tribunal for reasons that are totally unsustainable in law.

6. We are, therefore, required to see how and why the appellants were denied compensation under section 140 of the Act and how far the denial was justified. The appellants filed a claim petition (MVC 1404/92) before the District Judge and MACT, Chitrandurga under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The appellants’ petition, along with four other claim petitions (filed by the heirs of the other three occupants dying in that car accident and the fifth occupant who suffered injuries in that accident), was disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 9, 1996. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand (Rs.25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. For some reason, however, no order was passed on the IAs and the Tribunal proceeded to examine the claimants’ claim on merits under section 166 of the Act.

7. The Tribunal, in its order summarized the cases of each of the five claimants separately, noting the facts peculiar to the four deceased and the fifth injured occupant of the ill fated car. It also framed the issues arising in each case separately. In regard to Nagaraj, the son of the appellants, it noted that at the time of his death he was eighteen years old. According to the appellants, he worked at a sweetmeat stall and earned rupees eight hundred (Rs.800.00) only per month. He was going to Anjaneya temple in the car being driven by Basavaraj and in the accident he died on the spot. The appellants claimed compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs.1,00,000.00) only. In his case the Tribunal framed four issues which are as under:

1. Whether the petitioners prove that Nagaraj died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 28.10.92 at 11:45pm near Bheemasamudra Cross on Holalkere road due to rash and negligent driving of the car MYG 1624 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of Nagaraj, the deceased and are entitled to compensation?

3. What is the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents?

4. Whether the respondents prove that the accident did not occur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 753

2010 (6) Supreme 344SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ. Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. — AppellantsversusC. S. Gurushanthappa and Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 7049 of 2002Decided on : 18-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT Ambit, scope and applicability of section 140, M.V. Act, 1988 discussed.

2010 (6) Supreme 344
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. — Appellants
versus
C. S. Gurushanthappa and Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7049 of 2002
Decided on : 18-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Ambit, scope and applicability of section 140, M.V. Act, 1988 discussed.