Back
2009(2) C.G.L.J. 132 (DB)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
SMT. B. SATYAWATIDEVI - Appellant
Vs.
SMT. PALIBAI & OTHERS - Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 430 of 2000, Misc. Appeal No. 431 of 2000, Misc. Appeal No. 432 of 2000, Misc. Appeal No. 433 of 2000, Misc. Appeal No. 442 of 2000, Misc. Appeal No. 443 of 2000
Decided on 3-3-2009.
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - 166 - 173 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Four persons lost their lives in a motor accident involving a Commander Jeep and a stationary Truck. Claim petitions were filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The tribunal found the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Jeep and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the insurer of the Jeep not liable for compensation as the occupants were not proven to be fare-paid passengers. The court held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh for each occupant of the Jeep.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the insurer of the Jeep, the extent of compensation, and the use of the Jeep for hire or reward.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the Insurance Company to show that the occupants of the Jeep were fare-paid passengers, which the company failed to discharge. The court also determined the extent of liability of the insurer based on the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petitions, directing the insurer to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh for each occupant, and the owner and driver of the Jeep to be jointly and severally liable for the balance of compensation.
As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :
1. These appeals have been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against a common award dated 30.11.99 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in MACC Nos. 7/99, 19/99,21/99 & 22/ 99. M.A. No. 430/2000 & 443/2000 have been filed against the award passed in MACC No. 7/99; M.A. 431/2000 has been filed against the award passed in MACC No. 21/99; M.A. No. 432/2000 & 442/2000 have been filed against the award passed in MACC No. 22/99 and M.A. No. 433/2000 has been filed against the award passed in MACC No. 19/99.
2. M.A. No. 442/2000 and M.A. No. 443/2000 have been filed by the respective claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas, the other appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending Jeep for setting aside the award against her, challenging her liability.
3. 4 persons namely Sakharam, Krishnadev Singh Thakur, Mudo and Ram Abhilash lost their lives in a motor accident, which took place on 25.1 0.98 at about 9.00 p.m. when the offending Commander Jeep bearing registration No. MP-25/B/0364 dashed from the back side against the stationary Truck bearing registration No. CPT-2 10 1.
4. 4 Claim Petitions were filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the dependants of the deceased persons claiming different compensations on account of death of the deceased persons in the motor accident.
5. The owner and the driver of the offending Jeep filed their written statement taking a plea that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the Truck because he put his vehicle in the middle of the road and the Jeep collided with the Truck.
6. The insurer of the Jeep took the plea that the Jeep was being plied in breach of policy condition. It contended that the offending Jeep was registered and insured as a private vehicle, whereas, it was being used as a taxi at the time of accident as it was carrying fare-paid passengers. It also took a plea that since the accident occurred on account of all of a sudden negligently stopping of the Truck in the middle of the road by its driver, therefore, the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck would be responsible to pay compensation.
7. The owner and the driver of the Truck contended that their Truck was standing in stationary condition by the side of the road and the driver of the offending Jeep, rashly and negligently brought his vehicle from the back side and dashed against the stationary Truck, therefore, the entire liability of the accident goes upon the driver, owner and the insurer of the Jeep.
8. The insurer of the Truck also denied its liability on account of fault of the driver of the offending Jeep which dashed against the stationary Truck.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal recorded common evidence in all 4 Claim Cases. The claimants examined Ramshankar (AW -1), Nand Kishore Lodhi (AW-2), Kanti (AW-3), Palibai (AW-4), Hadma(AW-5) and Bitai (AW-6) in support of their Claim Petitions, whereas, the owner and the driver of the Jeep examined B. Vishveshwar Rao (NA W -1) in rebuttal. No witness was examined by the insurer of the Jeep or the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck.
10. Learned Claims Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver and the Jeep was being plied in breach of policy conditions as it was carrying fare-paid passengers, therefore, the insurer of the Jeep would not be liable to pay compensation to the respective claimants. The Tribunal directed that the owner and the driver of the offending Jeep shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded in all the 4 Claim Cases. In MACC No. 7/99, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as the amount of compensation to the claimants on account of death of deceased Sakharam. In MACC No. 22/99, the Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.74,896/- on account of death of deceased Mudo. In MACC No. 21/99, the Tribunal awarded a sum
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
