Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1678
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Prem Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rampal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 445 of 1997
Decided On : 07/26/2005
Mr. S.K. Sankhla, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the Appellants.
Mr. R.K. Mehta, for the Respondent 3.
The court emphasized the need to consider the record of the case and applicable law before making a decision on a claim application, especially in cases involving compromise and liability of the insurance company.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Claim Application - 173 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act related to claim applications, compromise, and liability of the insurance company. The court emphasized the need for verification and confirmation of policy and driving license in case of a compromise. The court also highlighted the principle of No Fault Liability under Section 140 of the Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the impugned award and remand the case for trial and disposal.]
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a minor in a road accident. The court rejected the claim application based on the assumption that a compromise had been reached between the claimants and the vehicle owner, and the liability of the insurance company was deemed void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the claim application based on the assumption of a compromise was unjustified and not supported by the record of the case. The court also noted that the application for No Fault Liability was not addressed before the proceedings took a turn towards the attempt of settlement.
Issues: The court addressed the erroneous rejection of the claim application, the failure to consider the record of the case and applicable law, and the lack of decision on the application for No Fault Liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the claim application based on the assumption of a compromise was unjustified and the case needed to be remanded for trial and disposal. The court also emphasized the need to consider the record of the case and applicable law before making a decision.
Final Decision: The impugned award dated 30.01.1997 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal for trial and disposal.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been submitted by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 30.01.1997 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur, Camp Deedwana in MACT Case No. 18/1995, whereby the learned Judge held that the matter was already compromised between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle and hence the claim application was not maintainable against the Insurance Company. The appeal arises in and from the following circumstances.
2. The appellants claimants filed a claim application seeking compensation on various heads on account of death of Mahaveer Singh on 03.03.1995 who was travelling in a bus and when he got down from the bus at village Koliya, he was hit by a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 21 C 1150 which was being driven rashly and negligently. Mahaveer Singh, aged 7 years, died on the spot. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,10,000/-was claimed.
3. The aforesaid claim application was submitted on 03.07.1995, the same was registered and notices were ordered to be issued to the non applicants. The next date in the case was fixed on 06.09.1995.
4. The proceedings in this claim case, which are directly relevant for the present appeal, as recorded in order-sheets show that the case proceeded from 06.09.1995 to 08.02.1996 thus:-
Þ06-09-1995 % odhy izkFkhZ mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ la- 1] 2] o 3 dh jftLVªh ,-Mh- izkIr gks pqdh gSA vizkFkhZ la- 1 ls 3 ckotwn lwpuk ,-Mh- vuqifLFkr gSA Jheku ,-Mh-ts-lk- vodkk ij gSA fely okLrs vknsk fnukad 28-09-1995 dks isk gksA
28-09-1995 % odhy izkFkhZ mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 2 dh vksj ls odhy Jh ujsUnz vks>k us odkyrukek isk fd;k tks kk- fe- gksA vizkFkhZ la- 3 dh vksj ,l-Mh-,e- mifLFkrA odhy izkFkhZ us Mh@,y dh QksVks izfr dh tks kk-fe- gksA i{kdjku dh vksj ls jkthukek #-60]000@& dk isk yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls subject to verification and confirmation ofpolicy and D.L.isk gqvk tks kk-fe- gksA odhy izkFkhZ us izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls jkthukek Loh-fr isk djus gsrq vuqefr pkghA fely okLrs isk gksus Loh-fr fnukad 05-10-1995 dks ukxkSj isk gksA
05-10-1995 % odqyk; mifLFkrA
i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa j[kh xbZA
odhy vizkFkhZ la- 3 jkthukek Loh-fr isk djus gsrq volj pkgkA fely okLrs isk gksus jkthukek Loh-fr fnukad 30-11-1995 dks isk gksA
30-11-1995 % odqyk; mifLFkrA Mh@,y dh izfr odhy vizkFkhZ dks fnyk; h x; hA i{kdkju i=koyh jkthukek gsrq yksd vnkyr esa j[kuk pkgrs gSaA fely okLrs jkthukek fnukad 19-01-1996 dks isk gksA jkthukek gksus u gksus dh lwjr esa fely fnukad 08-02-1996 dks isk gks
08-02-1996 % odqyk; mifLFkrA odhy vizkFkhZ la- 3 us tkfgj fd;k fd bl izdj.k esa jkthukek ugha gksxkA tokc gsrq volj -1 o 2 us tokc gsrq volj pkgkA fely okLrs tokc vizkFkhZx.k la pkgkA odhy vizkFkhZ la- 1 ] 2 o 3] 26-03-1996 dks isk gksA bruk fy[kus ds ipkr~ odhy vizkFkhZ la- 1] 2 us tkfgj fd;k dk gS ,oa {kfriw fd i{kdkju ds chp jkthukek #-10]000@& easfnukad 28-09-1995 dks gks pqfrZ dh jkf“k mUgsa vnk gks pq
dh gS vr% tfj;s jkthuke vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 2 ds f[kykQ rLnhd fd;k tkdj Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fely okLrs tokc vizkFkhZ la- 3 fnukad 26-03-1996 dks isk gksAß
5. It is apparent that on 06.09.1995, all the non-applicants were absent despite service but the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was posted to 28.09.1995. On that date Counsel appeared for the Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Senior Divisional Manager appeared for the Insurance Company, Non-applicant No. 3. An application was submitted before the Tribunal in which it was stated that the matter has been compromised between the claimants and the owner and driver whereby compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/-has been received and, therefore, proceedings against them may be dropped and that compromise with the Insurance Company has been settled for Rs. 60,000/-and, therefore, it was prayed that the matter be decreed accordingly. This application bears an endorsement from the said Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company that it was subject to verification and
