Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 659
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
HRTC AND OTHERS
Respondents
FAO No. 210 of 2005
Decided on 28-07-2009.
For the appellant:Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1:Mr. H. S. Rawat, Advocate,
The Motor Vehicles Act only allows for compensation for damages to the property, not for loss to the property or business.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Sections 166, 165 - The court discussed the issues of compensation for property damage and consequential loss arising from a motor vehicle accident. It highlighted the limitations of the Motor Vehicles Act in awarding compensation for loss to property and business, emphasizing that the Act only allows for damages to be awarded for the loss to the property. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Act's provisions and previous case law, leading to the modification of the award to limit compensation for property damage only.
Fact of the Case:
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenged an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in a case involving a motor vehicle accident. The claimant, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (HRTC), sought compensation for damage to their bus and loss of income due to the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's award of compensation for loss of income and payment to the legal heirs of the deceased conductor under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the claimant to compensation for property damage and loss of income, the maintainability of the claim petition, and the liability of the parties involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, which only allows for compensation for damages to the property, and not for loss to the property or business. Previous case law and the clear language of the Act's provisions influenced the court's decision to modify the award.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the award to limit the claimant's entitlement to compensation for property damage only.
Sanjay Karol, J.-M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., has assailed the impugned award dated 14.10.2003 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. in MAC Case No. 39 of 2001, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Sat Pal and others, awarding a sum of Rs.2,42,494/-in favour of M/s. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘HRTC’).
2. The HRTC filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that Truck No. RJ-02G-2015 owned by Shri Satpal, respondent No.2 herein (referred to as ‘owner’) being driven by Shri Baldev Singh, respondent No.3 herein (referred to as ‘driver’) had caused damage to their Bus No. HP-24-4576 in an accident. The accident was totally attributed to the driver of the truck. In the said accident, Shri Raj Kumar, conductor of the bus also sustained injuries and died as a result of the same. The negligence was solely that of a driver of the truck. The legal heirs of the deceased conductor filed a claim application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, wherein a sum of Rs.1,86,900/- was directed to be paid to the claimants by the HRTC, which was duly paid. Due to the accident, the bus was damaged and a sum of Rs.23,199/- was spent for the repair and since the bus had to be laid off for 34 days, it further suffered loss of Rs.3021/- per day. Thus, the claimant-HRTC was entitled to a sum of Rs.3,15,325/-.
3. The truck was insured with M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim petition was opposed by the owner, the driver and the insurer on different grounds.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the vehicle No. HP-24-4576 had suffered damage on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 of truck No. RJ-02G-2015? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to? OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-3.
4. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the claim petition? OPR-3.
5. Whether the respondent No.2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if not, with what effect? OPR-3.
6. Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3.
7. Whether the liability of respondent No.3 is limited to Rs.6,000/-? OPR3
8. Relief.
4. The Tribunal found that the accident had occurred on 28.6.2000 due to the negligence of Shri Baldev, driver of the truck and that due to the same not only the bus belonging to the petitioner was damaged but the passengers sustained injuries and Shri Raj Kumar, conductor of the bus died due to the same.
5. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal decided the claim petition awarding the following compensation:-
“Rs.30,210.00 compensation @Rs.3,021/- X 10 towards lay off. Rs.23,199.00 towards the expenses incurred by the HRTC for repair of the bus. Rs.1,86,900.00 amount paid by the HRTC to the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Raj Kumar, conductor.”
6. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the insurer has assailed the appeal on the ground that the amount awarded as compensation for the period of lay off and the amount of compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Raj Kumar, conductor could not have been awarded in a claim petition u/s 166 of the Act.
7. Per contra, Mr. H. S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the award for the reasons set out therein.
8. The challenge to the petition is limited and confined to issue No.2 only. Mr. Sharma fairly conceded that a sum of Rs.23,199/- and Rs.2185/- spent by the HRTC for purchasing the spare parts of the bus and labour charges for repair, have been rightly awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the award to this extent needs to be upheld.
9. Question however remains as to whether HRTC could have file
