Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amaresh Roy, S. N. Bagchi
PIJUSH KANTI GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
MAYA RANI CHATTERJEE - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 348 Of 1967
Decided On : MARCH 24, 1970
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-B - ULTRA VIRES - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - STANDARD FOR CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION - LIMITATION - S. 110-A(3) - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION - COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - ONUS OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the owner of a taxi, appealed against an award of compensation made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favor of the respondents, the wife and children of Gopal Chandra Chatterjee, who was killed in a motor accident involving the appellant's taxi. The appellant challenged the validity of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, contending that it was ultra vires the Constitution of India as it delegated excessive legislative power to the Tribunal without providing any standard for calculation of compensation. The appellant also raised issues of limitation, maintainability of the application due to non-joinder of parties, and the principles for assessment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was not ultra vires the Constitution and did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court noted that the section provided for a summary procedure, empowered the Tribunal to hold an inquiry and determine the amount of compensation that appeared to be just, and allowed for an appeal to the High Court. The Court also held that the Tribunal had all the trappings of a Court and was not merely a fact-finding body. Regarding limitation, the Court held that the provisions of Section 110-A(3) of the Act, which allowed the Tribunal to entertain an application for compensation after the expiry of the prescribed period if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time, were not similar to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that the principles and decisions governing matters under Section 5 did not directly apply. The Court further held that the non-joinder of the mother of the deceased, who was an heir, did not affect the maintainability of the application and that the Tribunal had the discretion to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was ultra vires the Constitution of India for excessive delegation of legislative power? 2. Whether the Tribunal had the power to entertain an application for compensation after the expiry of the prescribed period under Section 110-A(3) of the Act? 3. Whether the non-joinder of the mother of the deceased, who was an heir, affected the maintainability of the application? 4. What principles should be applied in assessing compensation in a motor accident case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was not ultra vires the Constitution of India as it provided for a summary procedure, empowered the Tribunal to hold an inquiry and determine the amount of compensation that appeared to be just, and allowed for an appeal to the High Court. The Tribunal had all the trappings of a Court and was not merely a fact-finding body. 2. The provisions of Section 110-A(3) of the Act, which allowed the Tribunal to entertain an application for compensation after the expiry of the prescribed period if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time, were not similar to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the principles and decisions governing matters under Section 5 did not directly apply. 3. The non-joinder of the mother of the deceased, who was an heir, did not affect the maintainability of the application as the Tribunal had the discretion to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased. 4. In assessing compensation in a motor accident case, the Tribunal should consider factors such as the loss of income, loss of consortium, and mental agony suffered by the victim's family.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of compensation made by the Tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an award made in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17 of 1964 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Howrah which is also the Tribunal for Calcutta and 24-Parganas. The claim was preferred by Maya Rani Chatterjee and her four minor children namely, Mamata Chatteriee, Shanti Dulal Chatterjee, Monoj Dulal Chatterjee and Brojo Dulal Chatteriee along with another child described as baby which minors were represented by their guardian mother Maya Rani Chatteriee. It was filed on 6th February, 1964 claiming compensation for the death of Maya Rani's husband Gopal Chandra Chatteriee as a result of an accident on the road north of Raja Subodh Mullick Square in Calcutta on 23rd June, 1963 at about 10 p. m. when the said Gopal Chandra Chatteriee was alleged to have been violently knocked down and run over by a Taxi Cab No. WET-1422 driven by Chandra Sekhar Misra who was an employee of the owner of the said taxi Pijush Kanti Ghosh.
( 2 ) IT was alleged that on 23rd June, 1963 at about 10 p. m. when Gopal Chandra was crossing that road from north to south the taxi car No. WET-1422 came from north to south along Nirmal Chandra Street and took a turn along Wellington Square north at a high speed without blowing any horn and proceeded towards east. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and thereby knocked down Gopal Chandra causing severe injuries in his head and on his person. The said taxi then stopped near the place of occurrence and some citizens who assembled there put Gopal Chandra on the back seat of the same taxi, called the traffic Constable on duty at the junction of Nirmal Chandra Street and Ganesh Chandra Avenue which is close to the place of occurrence, the Traffic Constable was asked to take the injured to the Medical College Hospital in the same taxi cab and he did so. Gopal Chandra died in the Medical College Hospital on 27th June, 1963.
( 3 ) AT the time of Gopal Chandra's death he was employed as the Head Assistant of Home Defence Department, Government of West Bengal and was residing at Calcutta. His wife Maya Rani was at that time pregnant and she was living with her children at Searsole in the district of Burdwan. She did not know about Gopal Chandra's death, nor the manner in which Gopal Chandra met his death. In Julv. 1963 Maya Rani's brother Shyama Pada Ghatak, P. W. 9 learnt about the death of Gopal Chandra from Home Departmeent in the Writers' Building and he informed Maya Rani of Gopal Chandra's death in the night of 5th July, 1963. There was a Criminal Case over that incident of running over and Shyama Pada P. W. 9 deposed as a witness in that Criminal Case. In August, 1963 he came to know from the Police Officer of the Fatal Squad at Lalbazar that Gopal had died in the motor accident.
( 4 ) AT first Maya Rani and the relatives of Gopal Chandra had thought that Gopal had been killed by gundas. At the time when Maya Rani learnt about Gopal Chandra's death she was in advanced stage of pregnancy and received severe mental shock on hearing the news of death of her husband. Due to that mental shock she even neglected her children and for that reason she had not known that Gopal had died in the motor accident even after that fact was learnt by her brother Shyama Pada Ghatak, P. W. 9 who also had informed another brother and uncle of Maya Rani that Gopal Chan-dra had died in the motor accident. After she had delivered the child in her womb she was ill for about six months. Only after she recovered from that illness and her mental condition improved, in February, 1964 Maya Rani's uncle, P. W. 8 Birendra Kumar Ghatak informed Maya Rani that Gopal had died in a motor accident. Two days thereafter on 6th February, 1964 the petition of claim for compensation was filed before the Tribunal.
( 5 ) THAT petition was accompanied by another petition supported by an affidavit praying for condonation of the delay in filing the application for compensation.
( 6 ) ON rece
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
