Back
1984 Supreme(Raj) 217
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K.MAL LODHA
HANSIBAI - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CALCUTTA - Respondent
C. M. A. 78 Of 1977
Decided On : 12/12/1984
A.L.Mehta, B.Advani, B.R.MEHTA, S.L.Maheshwari
A person claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must state or show grounds for getting compensation either under general principles or specific law. Mere fact of an accident does not entitle a person to compensation.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - COMPENSATION - CLAIM FOR - MAINTAINABILITY - CAUSE OF ACTION - APPLICANT MUST STATE OR SHOW GROUNDS FOR GETTING COMPENSATION EITHER UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR SPECIFIC LAW - MERE FACT OF ACCIDENT DOES NOT ENTITLE PERSON TO COMPENSATION - ACT IS MERELY PROCEDURAL - FOR FIXING LIABILITY, LAW OF TORTS OR FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT TO BE REFERRED.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Chunnilal, a driver, met with an accident while driving a bus, resulting in his death. His legal representatives filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the owner and insurer of the bus.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that no cause of action arose against the non-applicants and the application was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the applicants' application on the ground that no cause of action has been shown in the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The Motor Vehicles Act is merely a procedural law and does not confer any right to claim compensation. A person claiming compensation under the Act must state or show grounds for getting compensation either under general principles or specific law. Mere fact of an accident does not entitle a person to compensation. For fixing liability, in the absence of any specific statutory liability, the Law of Torts or the Fatal Accidents Act has to be referred.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.110(a), S.110(b)
S. K. MAL LODHA, J.
( 1 ) AGAINST the judgment dated August 6, 1977 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (District Judge, Udaipur) (for short the Tribunal), the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Chunilal (Driver) have filed this appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) ). By the judgment aforesaid, the Tribunal rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellants (the applicants herein) being barred as no cause of action was shown in the application against the respondents, who were non-applicants.
( 3 ) THE applicants filed the application for compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/- before the Tribunal on June 23, 1975 alleging that on January 6, 1975. Bus No. RJY 2151 was going from Kelva to Diver via Aamet and it was being driven by the deceased Chunnilal. At about 12. 00 in the night, the Bus fell into a pit and met with an accident. The applicants who are the heirs of Chunnilal have filed the application for compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the death of Chunnilal. Non-applicant No. 3, who is the owner of the Bus filed a reply contesting the claim solely on the ground that Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim of the applicants. Non-applicant No. 2 the National Insurance Company Ltd. , Northern Regional Office (Jeevan-Vikas) (Third Floor), Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi contested the claim denying the liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the Bus No. RJY going from Aamet to Diver fell into a pit on 6-1-1975 and met with an accident and thereby Chunnial Driver died? (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to get the compensation and if so, what amount and from whom? (3) Whether the death took place due to the negligence of the driver and if so, can applicants file the present claim? (4) Relief? issue No. 3 was treated as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal by its judgment dated August 6, 1977 rejected the application holding that no cause of action arises against the non-applicants and, therefore, the application is not maintainable. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the applicants as aforesaid.
( 4 ) I have heard Mr. B. R. Mehta for Mr. A. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and M/s. B. L. Maheshwari and B. Advani, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3.
( 5 ) THE only point that arises for determination is whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the applicants application on the ground that no cause of action has been shown in the application. In the application filed by the applicants, it has not been stated as to how the Bus met with the accident and who was responsible for this. The deceased Chunnilal himself was driving the vehicle and he drove it to a pit. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to S. 110-B of the Act and contended, that under this section the Court should award just compensation and according to him, it is not at all necessary for the applicants to state in the application as to how the accident had taken place or who is responsible for it. Learned counsel further submitted that as Chunnilal had died in the accident, his heirs are entitled to compensation and so, they could file the application claiming compensation. On the other hand, Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 urged that S. 110-B of the Act cannot be availed of by the applicants in this case, for, the Act merely provides the procedure for disposal of compensation cases and no person has a right to get compensation under the Act until it is shown that he is entitled to get compensation under the general rules of compensation or any other specific law.
( 6 ) I have given my serious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
( 7 ) SECTION 110-B of the Act reads as under : -"s. 110-B. Award of the Claims Tribu
