Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 24
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Viney Mittal, J.
Sarbati
Versus
Anil Kumar
First Appeal from the Order No. 810 of 1998,
Decided On : JANUARY 4, 2006
Compensation - Claim petition - Accident had taken place outside the territory of India, rather in Nepal - Section 163-A not applicable
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Scope and Applicability of - Accident taken place in Nepal, outside he Territory of India - Section 163 - A deals with special provisions for the grant of compensation on structural formula basis - Since the provisions of the Act only apply within the country and not beyond that, therefore, it must necessarily follow that even the said provision would apply to claims for accidents within the Indian Territory - Claim petition dismissed, as not maintainable. (Para 6, 7)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166, 163-A - Compensation - Claim petition - Accident had taken place outside the territory of India, rather in Nepal - Section 163 - A not applicable - Claim petition not maintainable, dismissed. (Para 6, 7)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A, 166 - Motor Vehicles (Operation of Commercial Traffic between Indian and Contiguous Countries) Rules, 1963 - Rule 4 - Procedure and legal requirements for plying the motor vehicles outside the territory of India and in such countries which are contiguous and which are having a reciprocal arrangements with India - Accident - Compensation - Liability of Insurance Company - If a claimant pursues his remedies in a Court of competent jurisdiction in a country where a cause of action has arisen and is awarded compensation, then the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself of its liability to reimburse the insured with regard to the payment of compensation - Held, Provisions not applicable in the present case as the accident had taken place beyond the territory of India i.e. in Nepal.
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC BETWEEN INDIA AND CONTIGUOUS COUNTRIES RULES : R.4
Viney Mittal, J.
1. These eighteen appeals have been filed by the claimants and arise out of a common accident which took place in the intervening night on June 17/18, 1995 at near the bridge of Pareva Bhir in the area of Police Station Mugling in District Chandi Bhajan in Nepal. Since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in all the claim petitions have held that the claim petitions were not maintainable before the Tribunals in India and consequently dismissed the claim petitions, therefore, the claimants have approached his Court through the present appeals.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The admitted position between the parties is that a bus No. UP-10B-0939 took various persons for pilgrimage from Delhi to Kathmandu (Nepal). On the fateful day, at about 2.00 a.m. when the aforesaid bus reached near the bridge of Parewa Bhir in the territory of Nepal, he bus driver allegedly lost his control over the bus and because of the same the bus fell into the river known as Trishli Nadi. All the 54 passengers travelling the said bus drowned in the river and died. Various claims petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Panipat, Karnal and Kurukshetra. All the Tribunals took a consistent view that in view of the fact that the accident in question had taken place outside the territory of India, therefore, the claim petitions were not maintainable. Consequently, the claim petitions were dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant have vehemently relied upon the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Operation of Commercial Traffic between India and Contiguous Countries) Rules, 1963. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions, it has been contended by the learned Counsel that since the bus in question was registered in India and was owned by the persons who were Indian citizens and the claimants as well as the respondents were Indian Citizens, therefore, the claim petitions filed by the claimants before the Tribunals in India were maintainable. My specific attention has been drawn to Rule 4 of the Rules to support the aforesaid contention.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that Section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself stipulated that the provisions of the Act extended to whole of India. On that basis, it has been argued that since the accident in question had been taken place outside the territory of India, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not attracted to the accident in question and the claim petitions filed by the claimants before the Tribunals in India were not maintainable. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Rules relied upon by the appellants were only applicable for the purposes of granting sanction and validity to the permits for plying the vehicles outside the country but were not applicable for the claims arising out of accidents, if any, outside the territory of India. It has further been argued that even provisions of Act were only special provisions for the grant of compensation on special structural formula basis but were only attracted to the claims arising out of accidents occurring in India territory.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the present appeals are devoid of merit.
7. As noticed above, it is not in dispute that the accident in question had taken place outside the territory of India and rather in the territory of Nepal. The provisions of Section 163-A of the Act which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants are extracted below:
163-A. special Provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained i
