Back
1981 Supreme(HP) 5
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.P.GUPTA
STATE OF H.P. - Appellant
Versus
DOLE RAM - Respondent
F.A.O. Nos. 21, 80, 23 to 28 and 29 of 1980
Decided On : 01/09/1981
Inder Singh, Advocate General, for Appellant; K.D. Sood and M.L. Sharma, for Respondent.
The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act are substantive in nature and confer substantive rights on the parties.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTIONS 110 TO 110-F - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - BROTHERS AND SISTERS - COMPENSATION - LOVE AND AFFECTION - MENTAL AGONY - LIMITATION - WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 110-AA - SECTION 3(5) - SECTION 10 - SECTION 22 - CROSS-OBJECTIONS - MAINTAINABILITY - JUST COMPENSATION - FORMULA.
Fact of the Case:
Eight appeals were filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the awards/judgments made by the District Judge, Mandi exercising the powers of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions filed by the claimants-respondents under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The brief facts were that a Himachal Pradesh P.W.D. Truck No. HPU 294 was carrying certain persons (who were working as labourers on the Pandoh-Kulu Road with the P.W.D. authorities) to their houses and these persons boarded the truck at village Hanogi. This truck met with an accident on 21st July, 1974 at 5 P.M. near Thalot on the Pando-Kulu Road, with the result that some persons died as a result of the accident. The claimants in each petition claimed themselves to be the legal representatives of the deceased persons and as such filed claim petitions under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act confer substantive rights on the parties and are not merely procedural in nature. 2. The word "legal representative" used in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is quite distinct and separate from the word "representative" used in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. 3. Besides the persons mentioned in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, the other persons who may happen to be the "legal representatives" have also a right to file an application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and they have also got a right to claim compensation for the loss of dependency as well as for the loss of estate of the deceased. 4. No amount can be allowed for love and affection and for mental agony. 5. The period of delay in filing the applications should not have been condoned. 6. The provisions of Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be made applicable as no payments under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act have been proved to be made. 7. The cross-objections filed in appeal No. 24 of 1980 are maintainable. 8. The amount of compensation awarded to the respondents is just compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim petition is within time? (OPP) 2. Whether the claim petition is maintainable? (OPP) 3. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.4. if so, its effect? (OPP) 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much? (OPP) 5. Whether the petition does not disclose any cause of action, as alleged? (OPR. 1) 6. What is the effect of receiving compensation including the donation from the Prime Minister Relief Fund amounting to Rupees 8,000/- in all, on this petition? (OP Parties)
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act are substantive in nature and confer substantive rights on the parties. 2. The word "legal representative" used in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is quite distinct and separate from the word "representative" used in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. 3. Besides the persons mentioned in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, the other persons who may happen to be the "legal representatives" have also a right to file an application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and they have also got a right to claim compensation for the loss of dependency as well as for the loss of estate of the deceased. 4. No amount can be allowed for love and affection and for mental agony. 5. The period of delay in filing the applications should not have been condoned. 6. The provisions of Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be made applicable as no payments under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act have been proved to be made. 7. The cross-objections filed in appeal No. 24 of 1980 are maintainable. 8. The amount of compensation awarded to the respondents is just compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
Final Decision: All the appeals as well as the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed and the same are hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
1. These eight appeals have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh appellant against the awards/judgments, dated 31st Dec., 1979 made by the District Judge, Mandi exercising the powers of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions filed by the claimants-respondents under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts are that a Himachal Pradesh P.W.D. Truck No. HPU 294 was carrying certain persons (who were working as labourers on the Pandoh-Kulu Road with the P.W.D. authorities) to their houses and these persons boarded the truck at village Hanogi. This truck met with an accident on 21st July, 1974 at 5 P.M. near Thalot on the Pando-Kulu Road, with the result that some persons died as a result of the accident.
3. The claimants in each petition claimed themselves to be the legal representatives of the deceased persons and as such filed claim petitions under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. It was alleged in the petitions that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck, HPU 294, by Daulat Ram driver, and as such the claimants were entitled to receive the compensation.
4. All the claim petitions, except one claim petition No. 1 of 1975 filed by Bhag Chand and others (pertaining to FAO 29 of 1980) were filed after the expiry of the limitation period and it was alleged by the claimants that the delay in filing the claim petitions should be condoned because the claimants were prevented by sufficient cause from making the petitions within time. It was averred that they were poor, illiterate persons who were residents of backward areas and that they did not know the law of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which they could claim the compensation and further more, they were under nervous breakdown and shock for a sufficiently long time, because several untimely and unexpected deaths had occurred in the accident.
5. Separate amounts of compensation were claimed in each petition by the claimants.
6. All the claim petitions were contested and it was asserted that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation and that the petitions were not maintainable. It was denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It was also alleged that the claimants had received compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act and, therefore, they were not entitled to claim compensation under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the claimants was denied and it was asserted that the applications for compensation are not within time and that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay in making the applications.
7. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in all the petitions except the claim petition of Bhag Chand and others (FAO 29 of 1980). "1. Whether the claim petition is within time? (OPP)
2. Whether the claim petition is maintainable? (OPP)
3. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.4. if so, its effect? (OPP)
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much? (OPP)
5. Whether the petition does not disclose any cause of action, as alleged? (OPR. 1)
6. What is the effect of receiving compensation including the donation from the Prime Minister Relief Fund amounting to Rupees 8,000/- in all, on this petition? (OP Parties)
7. Relief."
8. In the claim petition of Bhag Chand and others (i.e. No. 1 of 1975, out of which FAO 29 of 1980 has arisen) the following issues were framed as preliminary issues on 19th Oct., 1976:
"1. Whether the petition is within time? (OPP)
2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to bring this petition as alleged? (OP respondent)
3. Relief." No evidence was produced by the parties to these issues and vide order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 19th January, 1977, it was held that the claim petition is within time and that the clai
