SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Pawan Kumari & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Satpal Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6292 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 14598 of 2020)
Decided On : 07-09-2022
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 279/227/304A IPC - FIR No.30 dated 14.02.2012 - Adjudication on merits and in accordance with law
Fact of the Case:
The claimants lost their source of sustenance in a motor accident and filed a Claim Petition seeking compensation for the death of Subhash Yadav. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, and the High Court also rejected their appeal. The deceased died in a motor vehicular accident, and the driver and owner of the vehicle are facing trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal's rejection of the Claim Petition was based on irrelevant considerations, and the matter requires adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, allowing the parties to lead additional evidence if necessary.
Issues: Rejection of Claim Petition by the Tribunal, Influence of irrelevant considerations, Need for adjudication on merits and in accordance with law
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations, and the matter requires adjudication on merits and in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the Tribunal's award and the High Court's judgment are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The parties are given opportunities to lead additional evidence, and the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt/production of this order.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The unfortunate claimants, who lost their source of sustenance in a motor accident, have approached this Court by way of present appeal. They filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation for the death of Subhash Yadav in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal dismissed the said petition vide Award dated 07.02.2013. The poor claimants went in appeal but their first appeal has also brushed aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh vide order dated 18.11.2019.
3. Some of the admitted facts are that FIR No.30 dated 14.02.2012, under Sections 279/227/304A IPC, was duly registered in respect of the fatal accident at Police Station Baswa, District Dousa(Rajasthan). The driver and owner of the vehicle are facing trial which is stated to be pending. The postmortem report also clearly establishes that the deceased Subhash Yadav died on account of the injuries suffered in a motor Vehicular accident. In light of these admitted facts and in view of the scope of the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we fail to understand the logic which prompted the Tribunal to reject the Claim Petition on the premise that the factum of death of Subhash Yadav in the reported accident is not proved. One of the reasons, namely, the delay in registration of FIR is a question to be gone into by the Criminal Court where the driver and owner of the delinquent vehicle are facing trial. The Tribunal ought not to have influenced by these irrelevant considerations. We do not want to observe anything further as it would amount to expression of views on merits. Suffice it to say that the claim of the appellants requires to be determined on merits and in accordance with law.
4. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed, the Award dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Tribunal as well as the judgment of the High Court dated 18.11.2019 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon to adjudicate the same afresh. The parties shall be given two more opportunities to lead the additional evidence, if need be. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.10.2022. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
5. It is, however, clarified that these observations have no bearing on the merits of the Criminal case pending against the driver and the owner of the vehicle.
6. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
The adjudication of motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be based on merits and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by irrelevant considerations.
The burden is on the claimants to prove negligence on the part of the driver, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.