Back
2010 Supreme(Chh) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, I.M. QUDDUSI, JJ.
Rajesh - Appellant
Vs.
Goparam and Others - Respondent
M.A. No. 641 of 2001
Decided On : 21-10-2010
For the Appellant : Sanjay K. Agarwal
For the Respondent: Abhishek Sinha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that dismissal of claim petitions without adjudication on merits and without registering the petitions is illegal and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules.
Headnote:
Res Judicata - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168, 169 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. It highlighted the importance of registering claim petitions and conducting inquiries as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. The court also emphasized that dismissal of a claim petition without adjudication on merits and without registering the claim petition is illegal and against the spirit of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from the dismissal of claim petitions by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, on the ground of res judicata. The claimants had filed the petitions for compensation related to a motor vehicle accident, but their earlier claim cases for the same accident were dismissed for non-compliance with document submission requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the claim petitions without adjudication on merits and without registering the petitions was illegal and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules. It held that the second application filed by the claimants was maintainable as it did not operate as res judicata.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of claim petitions on the ground of res judicata, the legality of the dismissal without adjudication on merits, and the maintainability of the second application filed by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that dismissal of claim petitions without adjudication on merits and without registering the petitions was illegal and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules. It also ruled that the second application filed by the claimants was maintainable and did not operate as res judicata.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to consider and decide the claim petitions afresh on merits, after restoring the claim petitions and providing an opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence.
I.M. Quddusi, J.
The aforementioned three appeals are being decided by this common order as they arise from the common order dated 27.8.2001, passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, dismissing claim petitions as barred by res judicata. The claim cases were filed by the respective claimants in regard to the accident which occurred on 17.2.1999 by the vehicle Tempo Trax, bearing registration No. MP 23-GA 3578.
2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 17.2.1999, Sated Rana, Purushottam Pradhan, Goverdhan Sahu, Sukhdeo Mishra and their colleagues were returning to their village by Tempo Trax via National Highway 6. When Tempo Trax reached Kodar Nala culvert, the truck bearing registration No. RJ 19-G 0351, coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit Tempo Trax. In that accident Purushottam Pradhan and Safed Rana died, whereas Goverdhan Sahu, Sukhdeo Mishra and others received grievous injuries. The offence was registered in Tumgaon Police Station against Goparam, respondent No. 1, in Crime No. 17 of 1999 under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. M.A. No. 641 of 2001 arises from the Claim Case No. 35 of 2000, filed by the legal heir of the deceased Purushottam Pradhan, wherein he claimed total compensation of Rs. 12,02,000 under various heads.
4. M.A. No. 644 of 2001 arises from the Claim Case No. 33 of 2000, filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Safed Rana, wherein they claimed total compensation of Rs. 21,50,000 under various heads.
5. M.A. No. 645 of 2001 arises from Claim Case No. 34 of 2000 filed by the injured Goverdhan Sahu, wherein he claimed total compensation of Rs. 4,83,000 under various heads.
6. Learned Tribunal has dismissed all the three claim cases filed by the respective claimants on the ground that applications are barred by res judicata. The Tribunal observed that earlier the claim cases were filed by the same claimants for the same accident which were dismissed on 13.5.1999 on the ground that the claimants did not file copy of F.I.R., post-mortem report, driving licence and certified copy of the insurance policy. Those claim cases were unregistered, M.J.C. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1999, filed by the respective claimants for restoration of their unregistered claim petitions, were also dismissed on 1.7.2000.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on the record of the Tribunal.
8. It is noticed that the earlier claim petitions were not even registered and were dismissed in the absence of claimants for non-prosecution on the ground that copy of F.I.R., post-mortem report, driving licence and certified copy of the insurance policy were not produced with the claim petitions.
9. Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions of law (sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988); which are quoted hereinbelow :
168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.- On receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162, may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be :
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation u/s 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or pe
