Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Arvind Kumar - Appellant
Versus
M/s Sham Sunder Ravi Kumar and another - Respondents
FAO No.4364 of 2006(O&M)
Decided on : 28-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Nitish Garg, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.4364 of 2006 and for respondent-Arvind Kumar in FAO No.4168 to 4170 and 4396 to 4399 of 2006.
Mr.Paul S. Saini, Advocate with Mr.Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company in FAO Nos.4396 to 4399 of 2006 and for respondent-Insurance company in FAO Nos.4168 to 4170 and 4364 of 2006.
Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the appellant(s) in FAO No.4168 to 4170 of 2006 and for respondent No.1 in FAO No.4396 to 4398 of 2006.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases where the driver is the owner of the vehicle or driving with the owner's permission.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Claim Petition - Sections 140, 163-A - The court discussed the maintainability of claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of the provisions. The court held that the claim petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable if the driver is the owner of the vehicle or driving with the owner's permission. The court also highlighted the special provisions for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis under Section 163-A and the interpretation of 'any person' as a third party by the Supreme Court. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the statutory provisions and relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from an accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where claimants sought compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The court considered the maintainability of the claim petitions and the extent of permanent disablement suffered by the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable for the driver who is the owner of the vehicle or driving with the owner's permission. Additionally, the claim petitions filed by the claimants were found to be not maintainable as they did not prove permanent disablement.
Issues: The issues involved determination of the maintainability of claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the requirement of permanent disablement for such claim petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions under Sections 140 and 163-A of the Act, as well as the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'any person' as a third party for the purpose of Section 163-A. The court also considered the special provisions for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis under Section 163-A.
Final Decision: The court held that the claim petition filed by the driver, who was the owner of the vehicle, was not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. Additionally, the claim petitions filed by the other claimants were found to be not maintainable as they did not prove permanent disablement. The appeals filed by the Insurance Company were allowed, and the claim petitions filed by the claimants were dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. By this order, eight appeals bearing FAO Nos.4168 to 4170, 4364 and 4396 to 4399 of 2006 shall stand disposed of, as all these appeals are arising out of an accident which took place on 8.7.2003. Four appeals bearing FAO Nos.4396 to 4399 of 2006 have been filed by the Insurance Company, whereas remaining four appeals bearing FAO Nos. 4168 to 4170 and 4364 of 2006 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.
2. Claimants filed separate claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act' for short), claiming that on 8.7.2003, they were travelling in a car bearing Registration No. PB-30-B-2821, being driven by Arvind Kumar, one of the claimants. At 5.30 PM their vehicle met with an accident with one Tata Safari bearing Registration No.PB-10-BA-0200, coming from opposite side, being rashly and negligently driven by Major Singh.
3. In the case of Arvind Kumar-appellant in FAO No.4364 of 2006 and respondent in FAO No.4399 of 2006, it is claimed that Arvind Kumar was admitted in the hospital, i.e. Daya Nand, Medical College, Ludhiana on 8.7.2003 as he suffered multiple injuries and various surgeries had to be performed on him. Arvind Kumar also remained admitted up to 6.9.2003 and thereafter re-admitted on 10.10.2003 and discharged on 12.10.2003. As per the certificate issued by the Board of Doctors, Arvind Kumar suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35%.
4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (`the Tribunal' for short) after finding that the medical expenses are to the extent of 2,52,118/- awarded a sum of Rs.4,71,118/- to Arvind Kumar-appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the paper-book.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, following issues need determination:-
(i) Whether a representative of the owner of the vehicle/borrower driving the motor vehicle at the time of accident is entitled to file a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether in absence of any permanent disability, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable?
7. It is not disputed that Arvind Kumar was driving the car which had met with an accident. The car is owned by M/s Sham Sunder Ravi Kumar, a proprietorship firm of Ravi Kumar. It is not the case of Arvind Kumar that he was employed as a driver. Arvind Kumar was a representative of the owner-borrower. He is son of Sham Sunder, which is the first name of the firm. In the claim petition, he claimed that the car he was driving met with an accident with a vehicle coming from the opposite side, driven by Major Singh. In the claim petition, only the firm i.e. M/s Sham Sunder Ravi Kumar and National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the vehicle, driven by Arvind Kumar, have been impleaded as party-respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable as Arvind Kumar was himself driving the vehicle and, therefore, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants have submitted that since the vehicle was not owned by Arvind Kumar, therefore, the claim petition is maintainable.
9. Before considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, it will be appropriate to notice relevant statutory provisions. Sections 140 of the Act deals with the situation where death or a permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Section 140 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
“140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. – (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicles shal
