Back
2009 Supreme(J&K) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Ministry of Defence & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Janak Raj - Respondent
CIMA No. 208/2004
Decided On : 08 October, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: P.S. Chandel
Advocate For Respondent: Rahul Bharti
The duty of the Tribunal to achieve the social aim and object of awarding compensation, and the interpretation of liability of the driver in motor accidents.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 161, Section 165, Section 166 - The court discussed the definition of hit and run motor accident under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 165, and the provisions related to compensation and limitation under Section 166. The court also highlighted the duty of the Tribunal to achieve the social aim and object of awarding compensation, and the interpretation of liability of the driver in motor accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant-respondent filed a claim petition for compensation due to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident involving an Army vehicle. The appellants contested the claim on grounds of limitation, unknown identity of the vehicle, and non-arraying of the driver as a party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by an Army vehicle and did not fall under the definition of hit and run motor accident. It held that the claimant had established the accident was the outcome of the use of the Army vehicle. The court also emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to achieve the social aim and object of awarding compensation.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to compensation, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the establishment of the accident's cause, the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act provisions, and the duty of the Tribunal to achieve the social aim of awarding compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned award, reducing the compensation amount and interest rate based on the interpretation of the law and the circumstances of the case.
2. In brief the facts are that Claimant-respondent namely Janak Raj, the victim of vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu on 6th March, 1998 for grant of compensation on the grounds that he was hit by an Army vehicle on 7.03.1973 at Nagbani ( Domana), which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and sustained grievous injuries, which resulted into amputation of his right leg above knee. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the break-up given in the claim petition.
3. During the pendency of the claim petition, claimant-respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which had crept in filing the claim petition, came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7.3.2000. Appellants have not questioned the said order.
4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:
1. Whether claimant has suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 7.3.1973 due to the negligence of the driver of the offending Army Vehicle? OPP
2. In case issue No. 1 is proved what compensation the claimant is entitled to ? OPP
3. Relief.
5. The claimant-respondent besides himself examined Bishan Dass and Dr. Sham Jurangal as his witnesses. The appellants have failed to examine witnesses in their defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned award came to be passed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contested claim petition of the claimant-respondent on three grounds:
(i) That claim petition of the claimant-respondent was barred by time.
(ii) That the identity of the offending vehicle was not known and
(iii) That driver of the offending vehicle has not been arrayed as a party.
7. Admittedly, it is proved that accident has been caused by the vehicle, which belongs to the Army. Thus, identity of the vehicle and owner of the offending vehicle is known. The case in hand does not fall within the definition of hit and run case as given in Section 161 clause(b) Motor Vehicles Act, for short Act. It is apt to reproduce the said provision:
"161. Special Provisions as to compensation in case of hit and run motor accident:- (1) For the purpose of this section, Sec. 162 and Sec. 163-
(a) "grievous hurt" shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
(b) "Hit and run motor accident" means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose;
(c) "Scheme" means the Scheme framed under Sec. 163"
8. If the identity of the vehicle, which caused accident, cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose, the accident can be said to be a hit and run motor accident. In the instant case, an FIR came to be lodged in the year 1973 with the allegations that the Army vehicle caused the accident. Though the claimants have not given the particulars of the vehicle, but all the witnesses have deposed before the Tribunal that offending vehicle was an Army vehicle. The said evidence has remained un-rebuttal. Thus, issued stands clinched. Even otherwise, the claimant-respondent has to prove that accident has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle.
9. It is apt to reproduce Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act herein-after referred to as the Act, herein:
"165. Claims Tribunal (1):- A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (here after in this chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upo
