Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Tarkeshwar Nath and K.K.Dutta JJ.
Bihar Co-operative Motor Vehicles Insurance Society Ltd.
Versus
Rameshwar Raut
Appeal from Original Decree No. 334 of 1964 ;
Decided On : MAY 16, 1969
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - [SECTION 110A, 110B, 110F, 96(2)] - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - [JURISDICTION, LIMITATION, AMENDMENT OF CLAIM PETITION, ADDITION OF PARTIES, QUANTUM OF DAMAGES] - INSURANCE COMPANY - [LIABILITY] - NEGLIGENCE - [PROOF].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, which held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the respondents for the death of their mother and daughter in a motor vehicle accident. The insurer contended that the claim was barred by limitation, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the amendment of the claim petition and addition of parties were improper. The insurer also disputed the quantum of damages awarded.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, as it was filed before the constitution of the Tribunal. The notification constituting the Tribunal was published after the filing of the petition, but the earlier notification, though cancelled, was still in force due to non-publication of the cancellation. 2. The claim petition was not barred by limitation, as it was filed within 60 days of the accident. The subsequent amendment of the petition to increase the amount of compensation was not allowed, as it was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. 3. The addition of respondents 2 to 5 as parties to the claim petition was improper, as they failed to file their claims within the limitation period. 4. The insurer was liable to pay compensation, as the owner of the vehicle was insured with the appellant at the time of the accident. The insurer could not rely on the defense of no negligence on the part of the driver, as it had not raised this plea before the Tribunal. 5. The quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. The Tribunal failed to consider the relevant factors in determining the compensation, such as the age, earning capacity, and life expectancy of the deceased. The award was modified to reduce the total compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 2. Whether the claim petition was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the amendment of the claim petition and addition of parties were proper. 4. Whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation. 5. Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal is determined by the date of filing of the claim petition, not the date of publication of the notification constituting the Tribunal. 2. The limitation period for filing a claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act is 60 days from the date of the accident. 3. Amendment of the claim petition to increase the amount of compensation is not allowed after the expiry of the limitation period. 4. Addition of parties to a claim petition is not allowed after the expiry of the limitation period. 5. The insurer is liable to pay compensation if the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurer at the time of the accident. 6. The insurer cannot rely on the defense of no negligence on the part of the driver if it has not raised this plea before the Tribunal. 7. The quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal should be based on relevant factors such as the age, earning capacity, and life expectancy of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal were modified to reduce the total compensation payable by the insurer. The insurer was directed to pay the reduced amount of compensation to the first respondent.
Tarkeshwar Nath, J.
1. This appeal by the insurer u/s. 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal (District Judge),
2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sec.110-A of the aforesaid Act for compensation on account of the death of his mother, Kalawati Rautine aged about 55 years, and his daughter, Bimla Rautine aged about 4 years, which took place in an accident on 1-9-1959 at 4.30 p.m. The said respondent stated in that application that the jeep bearing No. BRR 2222 owned by Shyama Prasad Singh (respondent No. 6) was being driven by Brajendra Prasad Singh on 1-9-1959. The said jeep was coming from Dhanbad and was going to Deoghar, but when it reached Sarsa More near Palajori it dashed against Kalawati Rautine and Bimla Rautine who were standing by the side of the Jamtara Dumka Road and grazing a cow. They sustained injuries and both of them died at the spot He alleged that the jeep was coming in speed and the driver did not blow the horn. The cow which was pregnant lost her back putha and she also died after a few days. It was due to the rash and negligent act of Braiendra Prasad Singh that those lives were lost. The said jeep was insured with the appellant which was responsible for risk to the third party. The claim for compensation was to the extent of Rs. 6000. The said petition was filed on 30-9-1959. No action was taken for a period of about two years on this petition, but on 17-7-1961 the Tribunal registered that application and noted that the said application was not in the form prescribed by the Bihar Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1961, and hence it directed the applicant (respondent No. 1) to file a fresh application in proper form accompanied by the requisite fee by 17-8-1961. In compliance with that order a fresh petition for compensation was filed by respondent No. 1 on 17-8-1961, and he was examined on solemn affirmation on the following day. In that petition respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 3000 in respect of the death of his mother and the same amount in respect of the death of his daughter.
3. On 18-5-1963 the claimant (respondent No. 1) filed an application for the amendment of the claim petition and increased the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in respect of the death of his mother and the same amount In respect of the death of his daughter) in other words, he claimed Rs. 20,000 in all He stated that the amount of compensation claimed previously was very low. The tribunal passed an order on the same date allowing the amendment asked for subject to limitation. On the same date respondent No. 1 filed a petition for adding his two brothers, Babulal Raut and Kodo Raut (respondents 2 and 3, respectively) as parties to the claim petition. The Tribunal acceded to this prayer and added them as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. They also filed an application that the amount of compensation might be paid to respondent No, 1. On 26-8-1963 Rudi Rautine and Jamani Rautine (respondents 4 and 5, respectively) filed an application for being added as parties to the said claim petition as they were the daughters of Kalawati Rautine and were entitled to compensation. On the same date they filed another application stating that they had no objection if the entire amount of compensation be given to their brother (respondent No. 1). On this date the Tribunal passed an order adding them as applicants subject to limitation if any.
4. The owner of the car (respondent No. 6) showed cause stating that the petition was barred by time and the jeep in question was running in normal speed and the driver, Brajendra Prasad Singh was blowing the horn. At that time it was drizzling and the road was slippery. The driver, in order to save Kalawati and the child, tried to stop the jeep, but it was so close to them that the accident could not be avoided. According to him there was no negligence on the part of the driver and, in any event, he was
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
