The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to claim petitions by the legal representatives of deceased drivers involved in accidents without the involvement of any other offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (“OIC” in short) filed against an award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar (“MACT, Kishtwar” in short) on File no. 13/Claim preferred by the respondents no. 1 to 5 herein as being the widow, children and mother of the deceased-Des Raj Shan who died in a road traffic accident on 22.11.2000. In terms of this award an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lac) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded and ordered payable by the appellant-OIC. Claim petition was filed on 18.12.2000.

2. The deceased-Des Raj Shan was driving a Maruti Car no. DL-7C/0284 from Gandoh to Bhadarwah when upon reaching near Naseeb Nagar Thathri at 5 p.m. Said car is reported to have met with an accident due to mechanical failure resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased-Des Raj Shan resulting in his death when he was in his age of 42 years.

3. On account of this accident resulting in loss of life of the Des Raj Shan, the respondents no. 1 to 5 came forward with a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act of 1988” in short) for seeking compensation for the death of Des Raj Shan. This claim petition came to be filed on 18.12.2000 before MACT (Additional District Judge), Kishtwar in which the appellant-OIC came to be impleaded as sole respondent.

4. In this claim petition, the respondents no. 1 to 5 came to disclose that the deceased was working in Dul Hasti Project Kishtwar as Driver with National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The claim petition further stated that the vehicle suffering accident was being driven by the deceased-Des Raj Shan and was owned by him as well. The fact of the said vehicle being insured by the appellant-OIC was also disclosed. Thus, in a sense the compensation came to be claimed for the death of owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle meeting with the accident not caused by any other vehicle. An amount of Rs.14,00,000/- (fourteen lac) was claimed as compensation from the appellant-OIC. Along with this petition, a claim under section 140 of the Act of 1988 was also lodged.

5. In response to this claim petition, the respondent-OIC appeared and submitted its objections on 03.10.2001 wherein it came to maintain an objection that no compensation is payable in this case as the insured himself had become a victim in the accident and was not a third-party in that sense. The cause of accident was said to be the Car falling down 400 feet from the roadside which was an act of negligence on the part of the deceased-Des Raj Shan being the driver of the said vehicle.

6. The respondents no. 1 to 5 came forward with filing of an application on 11.09.2002 for seeking conversion of the claim petition from being under section 166 to 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 putting up a story that the Car, in reference, had come to be owned by the deceased from one Sh. Manoj Goel, Assistant Manager Electrical NHPC Colony, Kishtwar who had purchased it from Umesh Gupta in whose name the vehicle stood transferred in terms of a transfer certificate issued by the Registering Authority, New Delhi.

7. It was pleaded in the said application for seeking conversion that filing of claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was an act of erroneous advice on the part of the counsel engaged. To this application for seeking conversion of the claim petition, the appellant-OIC came to submit its objections on 04.02.2003 objecting to its purported conversion.

8. The respondents no. 1 to 5 again came forward with an application filed on 19.10.2004 seeking another amendment in the claim petition thereby meaning to set up the case that the Car in reference was owned by some three persons in succession. To this application, the appellant-OIC came to submit its objections on 01.04.2005 seriously objecting to the manner in which the