Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw and A.N.Grover JJ.
Unique Motor And General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Versus
Kartar Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 129 of 1991,163 of 1991,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 1, 1964
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-F - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - BARRED - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - NO VESTED RIGHT IN CHOICE OF FORUM - PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE - CHANGE - NO AFFECT ON SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS - PENDING ACTIONS - NOT AFFECTED - INSURANCE POLICY - CONDITION - COMPANY'S RIGHT TO DEFEND AND TAKE UP DEFENSES - S. 96(2) OF THE ACT - NOT A BAR.
Fact of the Case:
Kartar Singh, who was injured in a truck accident on November 27, 1958, filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on May 13, 1959, before a Claims Tribunal constituted on February 10, 1959. The appellant-company, the insurer of the truck, challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the accident occurred before the Tribunal's constitution and that the injured person's remedy was to file a suit within one year in the Civil Courts. The Tribunal rejected these arguments and awarded compensation to Kartar Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain claims for compensation that could be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. The Court found that the right to choose a forum is not a vested right and that the change in procedure and practice brought about by the Act did not affect the substantive rights of the injured person. The Court also held that pending actions were not affected by the Act and that suits filed before the constitution of the Tribunal could proceed in the ordinary Courts. However, claims for compensation sought after the constitution of the Tribunal, even for accidents that occurred before its constitution, could only be claimed before the Claims Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application for compensation filed by Kartar Singh. 2. Whether the appellant-company, as the insurer of the truck, was entitled to take up all the defenses that the insured could take. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not framing an issue or giving a finding on the negligence of the truck driver.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain claims for compensation that could be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. The Court found that the right to choose a forum is not a vested right and that the change in procedure and practice brought about by the Act did not affect the substantive rights of the injured person. The Court also held that pending actions were not affected by the Act and that suits filed before the constitution of the Tribunal could proceed in the ordinary Courts. However, claims for compensation sought after the constitution of the Tribunal, even for accidents that occurred before its constitution, could only be claimed before the Claims Tribunal. 2. The Court held that the appellant-company, as the insurer of the truck, was entitled to take up all the defenses that the insured could take, as per the specific condition in the insurance policy. The Court found that Section 96(2) of the Act did not bar the company from taking up such defenses. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not framing an issue or giving a finding on the negligence of the truck driver. The Court found that this was a necessary step in determining the liability of the insured and the company.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both appeals, set aside the award made by the Tribunal, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
A.N.Grover, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of First Appeal from Orders Nos. 129 of 1961 and 163 of 1961 which have been referred by a learned Single Judge for decision by a Division Bench in view of the nature of the points involved.
2. On 27th November 1958 Kartar Singh who was returning from his office at Jullundur to his village Nangal Shama on the Jullundur-Hoshiarpur Road was struck down by a truck No. PNE-1478 while he had got down from his bicycle and was standing on the kutcha portion of the road. He received several injuries and later on filed an application on 13th May 1959 under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter to be called the Act ) before a Tribunal which was constituted for the first time by a notification dated 13th March 1959 with effect from 10th February 1959. The question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide that application apart from other matters was raised by the appellant-company which happened to be the insurer of the truck which caused the accident. According to the company the Tribunal had not been constituted when the accident took place and therefore the remedy of the injured person was to file a suit within one year in the Civil Courts and not to institute a petition under S. 110-A of the Act after the expiry of a period of 60 days from the date of the accident. It was also pleaded on behalf of the company that such defenses as were open to the owner of the truck could be taken up by the company. These points were repelled by the Claims Tribunal, The Tribunal held that it was a fit case in which the delay in filing the claim application should be condoned and after giving decision on other issues an award in the sum of Rs. 8000/- with costs was made in favour of Kartar Singh.
3. The company has filed an appeal (F.A.O. 129 of 1961) challenging the decision as also the award made by the Tribunal whereas Kartar Singh has filed F.A.O. 163 of 1961 claiming enticement of compensation to Rs. 19, 150/-.
4. In the appeal of the Insurance Company the following three points have been urged by its learned counsel:-
-
(1) The accident having taken place on 27th November 1958 long before the constitution of the Tribunal it had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the claim application and make an award in favorite of the claimant;
(2) the company is entitled to take all the defenses which could be taken by the insurer by virtue of a specific condition in the insurance policy ; and
(3) the Tribunal failed to frame any issue or give a finding that there had been any negligence on the part of the truck driver and in the absence of any such finding no compensation could have been awarded.
5. In order to decide the first point, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 110 provides for the constitution of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such areas as may be specified in the notification by State Government for the purpose of adjudication upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110-A deals with the application for compensation. Sub-section (3) of that section is to the effect that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 60 days of the occurrence of the accident. However according to the proviso the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of said period of 60 days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. Section 110-B relates to the making of the award by the Claims Tribunal section 110-C, to the procedure and powers of such Tribunals section 110-D to the appeals which can be filed against the orders of the Tribunal S. 110-E to the recovery of money awarded by the Claims Tribunals from insurer as arrears of land revenue and section 110-F bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in these words:
"Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
