Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Vimla Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17321 of 2016)
Decided On : 16-11-2018
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 158 and 166 – In charge police station obliged u/s 158(6) to send report of accident to MACT – MACT in turn empowered u/s 166(4) to treat it as a claim of the victim or his kin – Provisions aimed at reducing pendency time as registration of claim must be made within mandatory 30 days; and quicken the pace of determination of the claim. (Para 17, 18, 19)
(2010) 2 SCC 607 – Relied upon
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140 and Section 163A – Claimant not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person against whom claim is made. (Para 23)
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140 and 163A – Claim petition is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense – It is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII, which is a complete Code in itself. (Para 24)
(2011) 10 SCC 509 – Relied upon
(e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166, 168 and 169 – Claimants adducing sufficient evidence to prove the accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle – Also filing material documents to prove the factum of accident and persons involved therein – Documents establishing identity of the Truck involved in the accident, identity of the driver and identity of the owner, insurer, period of coverage of insurance and details of FIR – Owner and driver of truck remaining ex parte – Insurer not examining any witness – Claimant examining three witnesses – Non-exhibit of documents only a procedural lapse – Held claim could not be denied. (Para 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34)
(2010) 2 SCC 607; (2011) 10 SCC 509 – Relied upon
(f) Administration of justice – Appellants referring to the documents at the time of recording evidence – Court not exhibiting them – Only a procedural lapse – Appellants cannot be denied the claim on this ground. (Para 33)
(g) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Deceased 25 years old – Leaving behind wife and two minor children – Earning 10000/- per month – Taking 3300 as monthly income after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, and granting 40% as future prospect and using multiplier of 18 compensation works out to Rs.9,97,920/- – Adding Rs.15,000/- for loss of the estate and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of spousal and parental consortium a total compensation of Rs.11,27,920/- with 6% interest awarded. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to motor accident claim.
MACT dismissed the claim on the ground that claimants could not prove the accident.
High Court dismissed the appeal thereagainst.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants have proved the factum of accident and rash driving of offending truck. They are entitled to compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 1739 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants and affirmed the award dated 05.12.2005 passed by the MACT Chomu (Jaipur) in MAC Case No. 48/2005.
3. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the case, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
4. The appellants are the claimants/plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the non-applicants/defendants in the claim petition out of which this appeal arises.
5. One Rajendra Prasad aged around 25 years was travelling in the passenger Bus bearing No.RJ-07-P-2151 as its bona fide passenger on 03.06.2003 for going to a place called "Chomu". When the Bus reached near Police Station, Chomu, a Truck bearing No. HR-55A-7729, which was going towards Jaipur from Chomu came on a high speed and dashed against Bus. The impact of dash against the Bus was so violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was sitting inside the Bus, sustained grievous injuries resulting in his instant death. This led to filing of the FIR No. 214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.
6. It is this incident, which gave rise to initiation of two legal proceedings, namely, criminal and civil. So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, a charge sheet (1/2003) was filed by the State against the driver of the offending Truck in the Court of Magistrate under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).
7. So far as the civil proceedings are concerned with which we are concerned in this appeal were filed by the appellants herein (claimants), who are the wife and the two minor children of the deceased, against the Insurance Company (respondent No. 1), driver (respondent No. 2) and the owner (respondent No. 3) of the offending Truck under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal, Chomu claiming therein to award reasonable compensation to them for the loss sustained on account of untimely death of Rajendra Prasad their only bread earner in the family.
8. The appellants along with their claim petition filed all those documents, which were filed by the State in the criminal proceedings against the driver, such as FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post mortem report of the deceased, registration of Truck No. HR A7729, insurance coverage, mechanical inspection report, copy of notice issued to the owner under Section 133 of the Act etc.
9. So far as the driver and owner of the offending Truck are concerned, since inception both remained ex parte in the proceedings. So far as the Insurance Company (insurer) is concerned, they alone entered appearance and filed the written statement. The Insurance Company, however, contended inter alia in their written statement that firstly, the owner of the Truck did not give any intimation to the Insurance Company; Secondly, the owner and the driver of the bus were not impleaded as party in the proceedings; and Thirdly, the owner of the offending Truck did not send a copy of the driving license of the driver to the Insurance Company to enable them to make an inquiry about its genuineness (see Para 3 of the award).
10. The claimants examined three witnesses in support of their case. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness. By award dated 05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim petition. It was held that the claimants failed to prove the accident including involvement of offending Truck, which caused death of Rajendra Prasad. It was held that though the claimants filed the documents but since those documents were not exhibited, the Insurance Company could not cross-examine the claimants’ witnesses on the documents. In short, the Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove the accident for want of evidence and the one add
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
