Back
2002 Supreme(Guj) 828
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.M.MEHTA
Payalben Jayeshbhai Yagnik - Appellant
Versus
Jayeshbhai G.Yagnik - Respondent
First Appeal 665 of 2002
Decided On : 11/21/2002
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 140 – Accident claim – Appeal – Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2001, passed by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ahmedabad in M. A. C. P. No. 11/2000 The learned Judge by his impugned judgment was pleased to reject the said application which has been filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Held, The provisions of Sec. 92-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939 become alive and generate sufficient power to enable jurisdiction to be exercised thereunder to help the hapless and helpless. Relief, according to the contemplation of the legislature, is to be provided to the widows and orphans quickly and instantly to preempt and prevent their destitution and- vagrancy and that object of the Legislature can be fulfilled only if the order under sec. 140 is passed imaginatively to ensure the relief to reach quickly, effectively and positively to be destituted. 5. 2 It is settled principle of law that the standard for adjudging the guilt of the accused in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the Court can take into consideration for adjudging any issue that evidence is sufficient on mere preponderance of probabilities. The legislature has provided different standard. Section 140 of the Act on the principle of no fault liability, makes the owner of the vehicle liable for compensation for death even when the accident is not due to the fault of the owner or driver of the vehicle and even if the accident has taken place due to the fault of the victim. In view thereof, the, claimants are entitled to the grant of compensation under no fault liability to the tune of rs. 25,000 under Sec. 140 of the Act5. 3 The no fault provision as it propounded in Section 92-A of Old Act (New Section 140) of the Motor Vehicles act is in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability - judgment and award of the tribunal dated 30th november, 2001, is quashed and set aside- in view of the same the application filed by the claimant under Sec. 140 of the Act is allowed.
( 1 ) ). Payalben Jayeshbhai Yagnik, appellant - original applicant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2001, passed by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ahmedabad in M. A. C. P. No. 11/2000 The learned Judge by his impugned judgment was pleased to reject the said application which has been filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2. 1 The applicant has filed application under Section 140 of the Act to get the compensation amount on the principle of no fault liability. In the said application, it was submitted that on 18th November, 1999, the petitioner met with the accident on the four cross road near Ashwamegh travels which is situated on the roads proceeding ahead from Vadilal Hospital towards Paldi. The petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and suffered fracture on right leg and she had taken treatment at dr. Mukesh R. Shahs Orthopaedic Hospital. She has put reliance on the treatment papers issued by the said Doctor, She further submitted the registration number of vehicle which is involved in the accident is GJ-1-B-5063 and the owner of the said vehicle is opponent No. 2- The affidavit filed by the petitioner is at Ex. 1- She has also filed affidavit at Ex. 19. 2. 2 Alongwith the said petition, learned advocate for the petitioner has also filed list of documents at Exh. 16 and submitted that vide Mark 16/1 the petitioner herself had lodged the complaint dated 1. 12. 1999 in which the details regarding the accident in question have been narrated at length by the petitioner. She has also produced document at Mark 16/2 certified copy of panchnama of scene of incident. She has also produced document at Mark 16/3 which is original certificate dated 18. 11. 99 issued by dr. Mukesh R. Shah, M. S. (Ortho.) of mahakant Orthopaedic Hospital. She has also produced Mark 16/4 which is the disability certificate issued by Dr. S. G. Patel, M. S. (Ortho.) dated 18. 5. 2001. She has also produced Mark. 16/5 xerox copy of insurance policy of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-1-B-5063- The petitioner has also produced Marks 16/6 to 16/28 original bills of expenses incurred after treatment of the petitioner and the expenditure figure in all shown in this list is Rs. 22,099/ -. 2. 3 The petitioner had also submitted certificate at Mark 16/3 issued by Dr- mukesh R. Shah dated 18. 11-99 and submitted that after the accident the petitioner had been shifted to Mahakant orthopaedic Hospital. Relying upon the said certificate she submitted that dr. Mukesh Shah had noted the history regarding the said accident in which it is mentioned that petitioner met with a vehicular accident on 18. 11. 99 at 10. 30 a. m. at Paldi Cross Road near Bonny ashwamegh Cross road while Kinetic was struck by Bajaj Scooter and petitioner was brought to his hospital at 11. 00 a. m. On the basis of the complaint which has been filed at Mark 16/1, she submitted that she had been discharged from the hospital and as the petitioner has proved that accident had occurred out of the use of motor vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to get rs. 25,000/- under the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. 2. 4 The opponent No. 2 insurance company had filed reply at Exh-18 and also the affidavit of its officer at Ex. 21 and submitted that occurrence of the accident narrated in the complaint Mark 16/1 is itself doubtful on bare reading of the same and when the occurrence of accident is not satisfactorily proved by the petitioner, this application is not maintainable, that the application is filed against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-1-B-5063 which was driven by the petitioner at the time of alleged accident and hence the present application deserves to be dismissed. 2. 5 The learned Judge before whom the matter is considered, he has also considered the m
