Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Smt. Tulsi Roy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
F.M.A 720 of 2010 With CAN 4 of 2018 (CAN 10291 of 2018)
Decided on : 28-09-2022
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163A - 192 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the ownership of the vehicle, the consequences of driving without a registration certificate under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the determination of compensation under Section 163A.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, due to the accidental death of an employee traveling in a truck. The tribunal dismissed the claim, citing lack of evidence of ownership and employment of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ownership of the vehicle and the employment of the deceased were established through evidence such as the Insurance Policy and Registration Certificate. It also held that driving without a registration certificate does not affect the claim under Section 163A.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the vehicle, the employment status of the deceased, and the consequences of driving without a registration certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the Insurance Policy and Registration Certificate to establish ownership and employment. It also interpreted Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act to conclude that driving without a registration certificate does not impact the claim under Section 163A.
Final Decision: The judgment in MAC Case No. 120 of 2005 was set aside, and the National Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest. The claimant was entitled to the compensation, subject to payment of court fees.
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2009, passed by Ld. Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katwa, Burdwan in connection with MAC Case No. 120 of 2005 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Ld. Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and documents available on record and came to his erroneous findings.
2. The Motor Accident Claim Case no. 120 of 2005 arose out of an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of accidental death of Raju Roy, son of late Rama Kanta Roy, aged about 39 years and an employee of the vehicle involved in the accident. On 21.01.2005 at about 11.30 a.m. said Raju Roy was travelling by the truck bearing no WB-57-7657 which was moving rashly and negligently towards Nagar and near Tentultala bus stand the said truck lost its control and capsized. As a result, passengers travelling by the truck sustained injury. One Subhodip Ghosh died at the spot and Raju Roy among other injured passengers admitted to hospital and died.
3. Claimed application has been filed with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000,00/-as Raju Roy was an employee of the offending vehicle having monthly income of Rs, 3,000/-.
4. Both the Opposite party/Insurance Company and owner contested the case by filing their respective written statements denying material allegations in the claim petition.
5. In course of trial of the case, claimant no. 1/widow of deceased Raju Roy examined herself as PW-1 and in course of her evidence Police Reports, PM Report, Ration Card, Insurance Policy were admitted in evidence.
6. On careful scrutiny of the judgment passed by Ld. Tribunal, it comes to my view that Ld. Tribunal focused on the written statement on behalf of owner of the vehicle involved in this case and non-filing of documents in support of employment of Raju Roy. Ld. Tribunal held that opposite party/owner denied his ownership of the vehicle involved in this case, by filing a written statement and thereby Ld. Tribunal returned his findings that actual owner of the vehicle involved in this case has not been made party and the Motor Accident Claim Case was not maintainable. On the other hand, Ld. Tribunal disbelieved the employment of Raju Roy and returned his findings that deceased Raju Roy was gratuitous passenger of the vehicle involved in this case. Thus, being the position, Ld. Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased Raju Roy.
7. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that exhibit 6 (Insurance Policy) and exhibit 8 (Registration Certificate) clearly proved that Anfar Sekh was the owner of the vehicle involved in this case. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that though Insurance Policy number and registration number were not supplied in the claim petition at the time of filing but subsequently by filing an amendment application the policy number and registration number were supplied and accordingly claim petition was amended.
8. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the National Insurance Company has contended that at the time of accident admittedly there was no registration which was issued on 02.03.2005 i.e. after the alleged accident. Assailing the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy, Mr. Singh has tried to make this Court understand that Anfar Sekh was not the owner of the said vehicle which was further corroborated by the written statement filed on behalf of the so called owner/Anfar Sekh. Before parting with his argument, Mr. Singh has submitted that no evidence has been adduced in the case in support of employment of deceased Raju Roy and that being the position Raju Roy was a gratuitous passenger. Mr. Singh concluded his argu
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ownership and employment evidence in the context of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as the i....
Motor Accident - Compensation - Accident took place because of his own rash and negligent driving of deceased person and being victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving his relative cann....
Compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted without strict proof of negligence, and the involvement of the vehicle in the accident must be established to determine compen....
Point of law: On a bare look at the Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it transpires that the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the pu....
The case established the importance of early and accurate identification of the vehicle involved in a road accident, and the liability of the insurer under the M.V. Act, 1988.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Insurance Company to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and the entitlement to recover the awarded amount f....
A claimant must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act; a driver cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained while driving their own vehicle.
The need to establish the deceased was not responsible for the accident and the requirement to prove insurance coverage to make the insurance company liable for compensation.
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
