Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 1204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.
Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Nageshwar Chaudhary - Appellants
Versus
M/P Anand Kumar Singh, S/o Aditya Prasad Singh and Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 811 of 2012
Decided On : 02-11-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Randhir Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi
The legal principle established is that in cases of composite negligence, a claim may be made against the owner and insurer of any of the vehicles involved, and different considerations apply at different stages of the M.V. Act.
Headnote:
M.V. Act - Motor Vehicle Accident Claim - Section 166, Section 140 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the death of his brother in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the relevant documents were not filed and the case was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident involved composite negligence of the bus driver and the speeding truck, and the claim was wrongly rejected at the stage of disposal of the petition under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.
Issues: The issues included the timeliness of the claim, the negligence of the drivers, and the consideration of evidence at different stages of the M.V. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim was not time-barred, and the negligence of both drivers constituted composite negligence, allowing the claim to be made against the owner and insurer of either vehicle. The court also emphasized the different considerations at the stages of Section 140 and Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal in light of the court's observations.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 on this Miscellaneous Appeal and perused the record.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 03.05.2012 passed by A.D.J. 1st-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitamarhi in Claim Case no. 09 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the entire claim petition of the appellant.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the claimant filed Claim Case no. 09 of 2005 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the Bus bearing registration no. BR06A/0716 on account of death of his younger brother in the motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that the deceased Sunil Kumar @ Munna Kumar was the khalasi of bus bearing registration no. BR06A/0716. On 28.11.1999, the aforesaid Bus was coming from Muzaffarpur to Sitamarhi and when it arrived near Dadar Bridge, Muzaffarpur at 07:30 AM a truck being driven rashly and negligently by its driver from the side of Darbhanga to Bariya dashed the front gate of said bus and smashed it. Resultantly, the said deceased who was standing at the gate sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to the hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Regarding the said accident, Aahiyapur P.S. Case no. 266 of 1999 was instituted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Owner, Driver, and Insurer of aforesaid bus put their appearance in the case and filed their written statement.
5. During pendency of the aforesaid case, the claimant filed a petition under Section 140 of the M.V. Act for awarding ad interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite party no. 3 (National Insurance Company Ltd.) filed rejoinder against the said petition.
6. The matter was pending for disposal of petition under Section 140 of the MV Act, but as the claimant was not present, on 03.05.2012, the learned Tribunal after hearing the opposite party no. 3 and perusing the record, dismissed the entire claim case vide impugned order dated 03.05.2012.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the claimant has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had filed xerox copy of the FIR lodged regarding the aforesaid incident and postmortem report of the deceased before the learned Tribunal. The said documents prima facie indicate that the left gate of the bus was dashed and smashed by a speeding truck at the place of accident inflicting serious injuries to the deceased standing at the gate and subsequently the deceased succumbed to his injuries. It is the admitted case of the opposite parties that the bus in question is hailing to opposite party no. 1 and insured by opposite party no. 3. For deciding petition under Section 140 of the MV Act, the learned Tribunal is only required to consider firstly as to whether an accident has arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle, secondly, the said accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making the claim or death of the person whose legal representative is making the claim and thirdly, the claim is made against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident. From perusal of the documents filed by the appellant, it is prima facie clear that the deceased was khalsi of the bus and has died during use of the motor vehicle and the appellant has made the owner and insurer of the bus as party in the case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the bus was dashed on the left side by the speeding truck which indicates that there has been negligence of the driver of the bus also in the said accident. Hence, it is a case of composite negligence as two vehicles was involved in the said accident. It is further submitted that at the stage of petition under Section 140 of the MV Act, the evidence is not required to be cons
