Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vidya Bhushan Gupta, J.
SHATRUDHAN SINGH AND USHA DEVI - Appellant
Vs.
DEVI LAL MAHOTA, RANI AND MASTER CHOTU @ SONU - Respondent
MAC App. No. 340 of 2008
Decided on : 05-08-2008
For the Appellant : Rakesh Khanna, Jinendra Jain and Faizy Ahmed Syed
For the Respondent: Ayush Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a prima facie finding of the accident involving the offending vehicle and the death of the person for interim relief under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment also emphasizes the beneficial and social welfare nature of the provision, highlighting that the object of the provision cannot be frustrated.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault - 140 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. The court emphasized that for getting interim relief under this section, the tribunal is only required to see prima facie the factum of accident involving the offending vehicle and factum of death of the person in the road accident. The court also highlighted the beneficial and social welfare nature of Section 140, emphasizing that it is a beneficial provision to give relief to a person who has suffered grievous injury or to the dependants of a victim who are left without a bread earner. The court emphasized that the object of the provision cannot be permitted to be frustrated and that the insurer cannot avoid payment of interim compensation by raising all possible pleas.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the interim award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a case where the deceased was hit by a Maruti Van and subsequently expired. The Appellants contested the involvement of the van and the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal had correctly awarded the interim compensation to the claimants, emphasizing the need for a prima facie finding of the accident involving the offending vehicle and the death of the person. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the Appellants to deposit costs.
Issues: The issues involved the involvement of the van in the accident, the cause of death, and the applicability of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie finding of the accident involving the offending vehicle and the death of the person for interim relief under Section 140 of the Act. It also highlighted the beneficial and social welfare nature of the provision, emphasizing that the object of the provision cannot be frustrated.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellants were directed to deposit costs. The case was listed for compliance on a future date.
JUDGMENT :
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by the Appellant against the interim award passed by Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.11.07 & 16.02.08.
2. It is stated by the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 to 3 had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that on 09.02.07 the deceased was standing along with her husband near Delhi Haat. One Maruti Van No. DDA 8487 was coming from the direction of AIIMS Hospital and was going towards Safdarjung Airport direction. At about 7.30 a.m. on 09.02.07 the Maruti Van being driven by Appellant No. 1 (herein) came from the side of AIIMS Hospital in a rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed and hit Smt. Devanti Devi, the deceased and caused the accident. The deceased was immediately taken to the AIIMS Hospital in very serious and critical condition where she was given all the best and required medical attention but unfortunately she expired on 11.2.07.
3. Vide the order dated 30.11.07, the Tribunal passed an interim award u/s 140 of the Act for Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants and Appellant No. 2.
4. Being dissatisfied with this order, Appellants filed an application for review of the above said order.
5. No reply to the application was filed by the Respondents but their Counsel addressed the arguments.
6. Vide order dated 16.02.08, the Tribunal dismissed the said application.
7. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that neither accident was caused by the Appellant No. 1 nor Maruti car bearing No. DDA 8487 owned by the Appellant No. 2 was ever involved in the alleged accident. Appellant No. 1 was on duty at the time of accident and attendance register is a public document. Further, it is clear from the letter of the SHO & I.O. P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, dated 22.03.07 that death was not caused due to the alleged accident dated 09.02.07 and in fact death was caused due to the accident took place on 11.02.07 by some other cause.
8. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondents has contended that as per F.I.R. the involvement of the vehicle in question is there and the Court has to pass the interim order, after prima facie, satisfying about the involvement of the vehicle.
9. Section 140 of the Act provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle on no fault.
10. It read as under;
140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.-
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) x x x
(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
11. For getting interim relief u/s 140 of the Act, the Tribunal is only required to see primafacie the factum of accident involving the offending vehicle and factum of death of the person in the road accident.
12. The Tribunal has come to a prima facie finding that the
