IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
Smt. Rukhmani Bai Ratrey W/o Late Raju Kumar Ratrey – Appellant
Versus
Jagat Ram Naik S/o Mohan Lal Naik – Respondent
MAC No. 1042 of 2015
Decided on : 22-09-2023
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 165, Section 166, Section 2(28), Section 2(39), Section 2(46) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the definition of motor vehicle, semi-trailer, and trailer, and the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court highlighted the applicability of the Act to accidents involving motor vehicles and the process for adjudicating claims for compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a fatal accident with a stationary tractor trolley. The claim for compensation was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal primarily on the ground of delayed FIR and the stationary position of the trolley.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the unplanned parking of the tractor trolley in the middle of the road, leading to the death of the deceased. The court also determined the quantum of compensation for the claimants.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the accident, the dismissal of the claim by the Claims Tribunal, and the determination of compensation for the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident fell within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court also emphasized that the delayed FIR and the stationary position of the trolley were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the claim.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The defendants/respondents were directed to pay compensation to the appellants, with distribution among the claimants.
ORDER :
Heard.
1. This appeal is against the award dated 14-5-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in MACT No.412/2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the legal heirs of Raju Kumar Ratrey. The claimants are the wife, minor daughter and mother & father victim/deceased.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20/08/2012 the deceased Raju Kumar Ratrey was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04-CA-6450 along with one Viond Kumar Barman. When they reached the main road at about 7-8 PM one tractor trolley bearing registration No.CG-11A-8435 was parked in the middle of the road in the dark which is owned by one Jagat Ram Naik. The deceased and the pillion rider dashed on to the backside of the said tractor trolley and sustained severe injuries and eventually died. Postmortem was carried out which is proved as Ex. A/5 shows that the cause of death was due to severe bleeding and internal injury and the time of death was stated before 24-36 hours prior to the postmortem. The main contention was that the tractor trolley which was parked in the middle of the road without any sign, as such, for this negligence the accident happened. For the accident, the report was made under Sections 283, 304 A, 337, 427 IPC. It was stated that Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company was the insurer of such tractor trolley.
3. The claimants stated that at the time of incident the deceased was earning Rs.7000/- per month and on different heads Rs.16,50,000/-claim was claimed. The owner of the tractor trolley along with driver i.e. the Respondents No.1 & 2 denied the allegations instead it was stated that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on part of the deceased. They further stated that the trolley was stationary one as such it cannot be treated to be a motor vehicle and was covered under insurance by the Respondent No.3.
4. Respondent No.3, insurance company, also raised the defence of contributory negligence and it was stated that the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without having a valid license and in state of intoxication. It was further stated that the deceased dashed against the vehicle i.e. the Tractor Trolley because of his own negligence as the tractor trolley was stationed at the road side and there was sufficient light to notice the stationary trolley. Therefore, the Tractor Trolley which is bearing registration No.CG-11A-8435 and they are not entitled for any claim. Further, it was stated that at the relevant time, the tractor trolley was not in movement, therefore, claim under the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be filed.
5. The claims tribunal dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the FIR was delayed and it was made on 05/11/2012 and according to the postmortem, which was conducted on 21/08/202012 the time of incident was shown as prior to 24-36 hours, therefore, the claim itself was falsified. It was further held that the trolley was in stationary position and the particulars of the tractor engine has not been shown, therefore, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not be applicable and the claim petition was dismissed.
6. The proposition of the learned Claims Tribunal prima facie appears to be faulty as admittedly as per the reply the accident occurred from a stationary trolley which was having a registration. Semi-trailer has been defined under Section 2 sub-section (39) and trailer is defined under sub-section (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of brevity Section 2 (39) & (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are produced herein below:-
(39) “semi-trailer” means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicl
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others {(2017) 16 SCC 680}
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to accidents involving motor vehicles and the process for adjudicating claims for compensation be....
Point of Law : where the place was dark and where the vehicle was parked without any sign or indication to warn other Road users, the negligence is on the driver of the parked vehicle and not the dri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.