Sulochana w/o Madhukar Joshi vs Gurubachansingh s/o Saransingh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(Bom) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Aurangabad Bench)
B.N. Deshmukh, J.
Sulochana w/o Madhukar Joshi. .... Appellant.
Versus
Gurubachansingh s/o Saransingh..... Respondent.
First appeal No. 143 of 1985, decided on 1-3-1988.
Advocates appeared :
S.R. Barlinge, for N.P. Chappalgaonker, for petitioner.
A.H. Kapadia, for respondent.

Headnote:Sections 92 - A and 110 (1) - Whether the claim under Section 92-A amounts to an award-If appeal lies against an order under Section 92-A.
       It is clear from the Rule 306-B that the compensation granted under Section 92-A amounts to an award,
       Section 110 - E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides for recovery of money from insurer as arrears of lent revenue. It Provides that where any money is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may on an application made to it by the person en titled to the money issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land revenue. If-the contention that the procedure right from making an application onwards as provided under Section 110-A to 110-F are inter connected and formed one integral scheme is accepted, then no money even though due from any person under an award under Section 92-A will not be able to recovered under the Provisions of Section 110-E. Therefore, such a contingency is not contemplated at all. The provisions of the statute will have to be harmoniously construed and in view of that also, it cannot be said that preferring of an appeal under Section 110-D is restricted merely to award passed under Section 110-B and exclude the awards passed under Section 92-A of the Act.
       Held, that determination of claim under Section 12-A amounts to an award available for appeal under Section 110-D of the Act.

JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This first appeal is filed by the claimant who has filed an application for claiming compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that her husband Madhukar met with the accident which resulted in his death in Gevrai town on10-1-1984 at about 7.30 p.m. According to her, the accident was caused because of the dash given by the Driver of Vehicle M.W.A. 5389 which is a Tanker. She maintained that Driver of Tanker was driving the Tanker in a very high speed and was also driving negligently and rashly.

2. The learned trial Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that the said accident to deceased Madhukar is not caused by the Tanker bearing No. 5389.

3. The award passed refusing the claim of the claimant is challenged in this appeal. In this appeal, one Civil Application No. 88 of 1987 was filed on behalf of the appellant -claimant for adding Oriental Fire General Insurance Company Ltd., as respondent No. 2 to this appeal. This application is rejected by me by a separate order.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge holding that the accident is not caused by the Tanker bearing No. MWA 5389 belonging to respondent is not correct. The evidence of claimant is not properly appreciated in coming to the conclusion that the accident is not caused by the said Tanker.

5. The learned Counsel Shri Kapadia, appearing for the respondent, contended that the First appeal filed by the claimant is not maintainable. According to him, the provisions of section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act provide for filing of appeals after award is passed under section 110-B of the said Act. The claim arising out of this appeal is a claim made under the provisions of section 92-A and no appeal can be filed in this Court against non-grant of claim under section 92-A because section 92-A does not speak of any award but it provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. He also contends that the Tanker No.5389 was not involved in the accident.

6. The following points arise for determination in this appeal.

1) Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable?

2) Whether the accident is caused by Tanker No.MWA 5389?

3) What order?

7. Shri Kapadia contended that the provisions of section 110/D regarding filing of appeals will have to be read in the light of sections 110-A and 110-B of the Act. According to him, the provisions of section 110-A to section 110-F are code in itself. Section 110-A provides for making an application for compensation. section 110-B provides award of the Claims Tribunal on application under section 110. Section 110-C provides for the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. section 110-D provides for appeals. According to the learned Counsel, if we consider the provisions of section 110-A to section 110-F, the provisions are inter connected and form an integral scheme. Therefore, when the provision for filing appeal is made in section 110-D, appeal must be arising out of award based on application under section 110-A. The award which is available for challenge in appeal under section 110-D is the one which is made under section 110-B and not any award passed under the provisions of other sections for the compensation.

8. It would be useful to refer to the provisions of section 110-D at this stage:---

(i) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a claims Tribunal may within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court.

Provided that High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninty days, if it is satisfied that he appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

No appeal shall lie against any award of Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document