Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
Prabhat Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Devi Singh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No. 904 of 2013
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate, Deepak Gupta, Advocate, P.R. Patankar, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the principle of 'no fault' compensation in cases of motor accidents.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - 140 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and specifically focused on Section 140 regarding liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. The court also referred to case laws such as Minu Rout and Another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 695 and Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 to interpret the legal provisions and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was involved in a motor accident and filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding the appellant solely negligent for the accident and directed recovery of an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company towards 'no fault liability'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was held solely negligent for the accident and dismissed the claim application. Additionally, the court held that the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid towards 'no fault liability' was not recoverable, overturning the decision of the Claims Tribunal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of negligence in the motor accident, the applicability of 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the recovery of the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evaluation of evidence, including spot-maps, and the interpretation of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the principle of 'no fault' compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the impugned award to disallow the recovery of the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid as compensation towards 'no fault liability'.
JUDGMENT
Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as ''Claims Tribunal'') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.47 of 2009 whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the accident is on account of sole negligence of the appellant/claimant and directed that non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by it to be paid to the appellant towards ''no fault liability''.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell, are that, on 07.05.2008 at about 3.15 pm, appellant was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG07/LK/0823, owned by his friend-cum-relative, namely, Jagannath Yadav and going to Golbazar of Khairagarh from Civil Lines. While so, another motorcycle bearing registration No.CG08/H/7240 driven by non-applicant No.1 coming from old bus stand, dashed his motorcycle in front of Pushpak Auto Sale. In the aforementioned accident, appellant suffered injuries over his forehead, nose, lips, chin, left elbow, left knee and left foot. The accident was reported to concerned Police Station, based on which, Crime No.135 of 2008 was registered against non-applicant No.1.
3. The appellant was taken to Primary Health Centre, Khairagarh, but looking to the grievousness of his injuries, he was discharged from hospital and thereafter, he took treatment at Gayatri Hospital, Durg till 16.05.2008. He undergone operation of thumb of his left foot, due to the injuries suffered by him, he has to take bed rest for three months.
4. The appellant/claimant thereafter filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''M.V. Act'') before the learned Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.5,26,600/- as compensation.
5. Respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 submitted reply to claim application and denied all the adverse pleadings made by the claimant against him. It was pleaded that motorcycle No.CG08/H/7240 driven by non-applicant No.1 was dashed by the appellant from his motorcycle No.CG07/LK/0823 driven by him and his friend Durgesh Kumar was also sitting as pillion. It was further pleaded that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the appellant; the accident was reported by non-applicant No.1 to the concerned Police Station, based on which, crime was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC against the appellant/claimant and the appellant suffered only simple injuries and not any permanent disability over his person. It was also pleaded that the motorcycle owned by non-applicant No.1 was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company and he was possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle.
6. Respondent No.2/Non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company of Motorcycle No.CG08/H/7240 driven by non-applicant No.1 submitted separate reply to claim application and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident was on account of head on collision between two vehicles, there was no driving license with the driver of the vehicle and there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
7. Respondent No.3/Non-application No.3 did not choose to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and was proceeded ex parte.
8. Respondent No.4/non-applicant No.4-Insurance Company of Motorcycle No.CG07/LK/0823 driven by the appellant submitted reply to claim application and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the claim application. It was pleaded that there was no driving license with the drivers of both the vehicles and there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings of respective parties, formulated as many as six issues for consideration. On appreciation of the pleadi
