Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
District Election Officer through the District Collector - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kailashi Devi W/o late Shri Girraj and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 244 of 2011
Decided On : 14-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sameer Sharma for Dr. Ganesh Parihar - AAG
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal with Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav Mr. Sagar Jindal
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining liability for compensation in cases of accidents involving vehicles.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, SECTION 173] - The court discussed the liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of the act in relation to the ownership and control of the vehicle, as well as the liability of the insurance company. The court referred to precedential judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim petition for compensation due to a fatal accident caused by a rashly and negligently driven vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and held the District Election Officer liable to pay the compensation, exonerating the Insurance Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the negligent act of the driver, and the evidence supported the Tribunal's findings. The court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding the ownership and control of the vehicle, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, ownership and control of the vehicle, and the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to determine the liability for compensation and affirmed the Tribunal's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to award compensation and hold the District Election Officer liable, while exonerating the Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘Act of 1988’) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (afterwards referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.46/2009, whereby, the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of complainants and while fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant - District Election Officer exonerated the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.12.2008 at about 05:00 PM deceased Giriraj Bairwa, after doing mechanical (mistri) work he was going to his village, when he reached opposite Police Line Jail, Dausa Road, Bajariya, Sawai Madhopur a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. RJ29/T 0211, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1, hit the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and became unconscious. The deceased while taking to the hospital succumbed to the injuries.
3. In pursuance of the said accident, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Mantown, Sawai Madhopur against respondent No.1 - driver of the erring vehicle and the police after investigation filed challan against respondent No.1.
4. A claim petition to this effect was filed by the claimants for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.22,62,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contested the claim petition by filing joint written statement and denied the averments contained in the claim petition. It was contested that the deceased fell down on account of his own mistake and no accident has taken place by the vehicle in question. It was also contested that since the vehicle in question had been requisitioned by appellant - District Election Officer and was insured with Insurance Company, therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are liable to pay the compensation.
6. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company filed its written statement and admitted that fact of issuance of insurance policy in the name of registered owner i.e. respondent No.2. It was contested that since the possession and control of the insured vehicle was given to the respondent No.4 by registered owner - respondent No.2, the insurance contract between the registered owner and Insurance Company had itself come to an end and there was no contract of insurance with the respondent No.4 under the insurance policy, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further contested that the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of deceased himself. It was contested that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide judgment & award dated 18.10.2010 while allowing the claim petition awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 11.02.2009 and while fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant - District Election Officer exonerated the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Tribunal committed a grave error in fastening the liability to pay compensation for the alleged accident. He argued that on 05.12.2028 the vehicle in question was released at 11:00 AM and the accident had taken place much thereafter at 05:00 PM, thus, the vehicle in question was not being used by the appellant. He further argued that the ownership of the vehicle in question was never transferred in favour of the appellant and the insurance policy issued in the name of owner of the vehicle in question did not come to an end and even if the vehicle in question was un
